Whether a debtor may make a deposit for repayment in cases where a creditor dies and his/her heir is unknown without negligence (affirmative)

Article 487 of the Civil Act, Articles 32, 33, and 48 of the Deposit Rules, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Da3055 Decided May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1752) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68650, 6867 Decided February 9, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 435) Supreme Court Decision 2009Da82831 Decided February 25, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 646) Supreme Court Decision 201Ma934 Decided July 14, 2011

Plaintiff (Attorney Sung-sung et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Yong-gu Agricultural Cooperatives

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Na34469 Decided April 20, 2012

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a creditor dies and his/her heir is unknown without negligence, the debtor may make a deposit for payment pursuant to the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act. An heir who is the deposited person may file a claim for withdrawal of deposited goods with the deposit officer, along with documents evidencing inheritance, such as a family relation certificate and a certified copy. Meanwhile, the deposit officer only has the formal examination right to examine whether the claim for withdrawal of deposited goods by the deposit party satisfies the procedural and substantive requirements prescribed in the deposit-related Acts and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Order 201Ma934, Jul. 14, 201), and documents attached thereto, such as the deposit officer's family relation certificate, and a certified copy of the removed list, are unable to examine whether the request for withdrawal of deposited goods is true and genuine. In such case, seeking the confirmation of the claim for withdrawal of deposited goods becomes the most appropriate means to determine the substantive legal relationship of heir, and the legitimate receipt authority is 6086,6086,606,606, 2067, 2067, 20606.

2. A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, ① Nonparty 1 was born on September 2, 1927 on the resident registration basis, and on December 10, 1969, entered in the family register organized by filing a report of entry into a family register on December 10, 1969, in the father’s name and the mother’s name and the mother’s name. On November 9, 1973, Nonparty 2 reported a marriage with Nonparty 2, but did not have a child under the surbly. Nonparty 2 was established after the husband’s death; ② Nonparty 1 had a deposit claim against the Defendant at the time of death; the Defendant deposited the deposit claim against Nonparty 1 with Nonparty 1 as the heir of Nonparty 1 on August 19, 2010, and the Plaintiff was born between Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 4 on April 13, 194 and Nonparty 4 on April 27, 2019.

B. In this case where the plaintiff, on September 2, 1927, was born between the non-party 3 and the non-party 1, and the non-party 1 did not have a child to the non-party 2 and his parent died, and the plaintiff asserted that the non-party 1 was the only heir of the non-party 1 and sought confirmation of the right to claim the payment of deposit money against the defendant, the court below determined that the plaintiff is the only heir of the non-party 1, as stated in its reasoning.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, this case constitutes a case where it is difficult for the depository to examine whether the Plaintiff was the true heir of Nonparty 1 solely with the documents attached to the deposit manager, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff has a legal interest in seeking confirmation against the Defendant, who was the deposit manager, as the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the uncertainty or risk of his legal status.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interest in confirmation or the standing for defendant.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)