All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The plaintiff filed a claim by the non-party 1 for the alteration or forgery of the deposit claim amount of KRW 44,750,000 ( KRW 45,500,750-750,000) remaining, except for KRW 750,00,00 which the plaintiff voluntarily requested out of the payment amount of October 28, 1986, which the defendant bank paid to the non-party 2 three times as above, and since each payment is not effective repayment against the plaintiff, the plaintiff still claims for the refund of deposit amount of KRW 44,750,00,00 in the above amount, asserting that the defendant bank has a claim for refund of deposit equivalent to the above amount against the defendant bank.

First of all, since the plaintiff is a dispute over a deposit contract between the bank in Korea and the bank in Korea, the governing law should be determined as an conflict of interest. According to Article 30 of the Conflict of Laws Act, the matters concerning banking business and the effect of the deposit contract in our country are governed by the law of the country to which the bank belongs. Thus, the law applicable to this case in which the deposit contract was concluded in our country

However, Defendant Bank issued the above deposit passbook to Nonparty 1 and issued it to Nonparty 2 with Nonparty 1 and then delegated it to Nonparty 2’s right of withdrawal of each deposit. Nonparty 2 received instructions from Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 2, and each of the above deposit payment to Nonparty 2 is valid as due repayment to the Plaintiff. Thus, Defendant Bank’s 2-4 of evidence No. 3, No. 15, No. 17, No. 18, No. 98, No. 18, and No. 20, No. 9 of the above deposit passbook No. 9 of the Plaintiff’s deposit passbook No. 2, No. 9 of the Plaintiff’s deposit passbook No. 7, No. 9 of the Plaintiff’s deposit passbook No. 2, No. 106 of the Plaintiff’s deposit passbook No. 9, No. 70 of the Plaintiff’s deposit passbook No. 9 of the Plaintiff’s deposit passbook No. 1 and No. 9 of the Plaintiff’s deposit No. 7, No. 9 of the Plaintiff’s deposit No.

According to the above facts of recognition, with respect to the plaintiff's total amount of KRW 44,750,000 excluding the above amount of KRW 750,000 out of the amount of the withdrawal from October 28, 1986, which was not disputed by the plaintiff among the non-party 2, the non-party 1 withdrawn from non-party 2 and did not dispute that the plaintiff was legally repaid, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have explicitly or implicitly delegated the right of withdrawal to the non-party 1. Thus, the defendant's defense that the plaintiff paid to the legitimate recipient cannot be deemed to have any ground. Thus, the issue of whether the payment to non-party 1 was effective as the repayment to the non-party 2 is valid only if it was done in good faith

First of all, when finding a deposit between the plaintiff and the defendant bank in the ordinary deposit contract, the defendant bank shall specify the amount, year, month, and date of the deposit request prescribed by the defendant bank, and shall sign and submit it to the defendant bank together with the deposit passbook with the statement of the name reported to the defendant bank, and if the defendant bank deems that the amount of the deposit passbook is no more than a comparison with the name and signature of a considerable attention, the defendant bank shall pay the claim amount to the person who participated in the deposit passbook. As for the amount paid in accordance with such procedure, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant bank shall not be held liable for all damages arising from the divulgence of the name, misappropriation of the passbook, forgery of signature, alteration of the signature, or any other cause. Thus, the claim amount was modified in the case of the deposit request amount of KRW 7,50,000 on October 28, 1986 (No. 2-1 of No. 2), but the claim amount was stated in the non-party 10-60 of the check Act, and it cannot be found that the above amount was less than a 70-10-60 of the bill payment.

Then, in light of the above legal principles as seen earlier, it is hard for Defendant Bank to 34,00,00 won paid on December 26, 1986 and 4,00,00 won paid at the time of payment to Defendant Bank’s signature, and thus, it is hard for Defendant Bank to see whether it becomes exempted from its signature due to the comparison of the above legal principles as to whether the above amount of money recorded on the falsified deposit passbook was paid to Nonparty 2 by using the same method as that of Defendant Bank’s signature-keeping and seal impression affixed on December 4, 1986, and as a whole, it is difficult for Defendant Bank to see that the signature-keeping of the above money was written on December 26, 1986 (No. 2-4) and that there is no difference between the above portion of its signature-keeping’s deposit passbook and that of the above Defendant Bank’s signature-keeping’s signature-keeping and seal impression affixed to each of the above parties’ signature-keeping and seal impression affixed to Defendant Bank as a whole.

Therefore, since the deposit of this case seeking the return of the plaintiff was paid to the plaintiff legally in accordance with the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant in accordance with the deposit contract, the plaintiff's claim of this case is groundless, but since the judgment which partially accepted the plaintiff's claim is unfair, the court below accepted the defendant's appeal and dismissed the part against the defendant in the original judgment, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation portion is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff as the losing party.

Judges Choi Han-ro (Presiding Judge)