[1] The meaning of the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Code where the person who performed the obligation is unable to identify the obligee without negligence

[2] Criteria for determining deposit holders in a deposit contract after the implementation of the Real Name Financial Transactions Act

[3] The case where a financial institution which entered into a deposit contract can make a repayment deposit on the ground of the creditor's uncertainty under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Code

[4] The case holding that a financial institution which entered into a deposit contract was exempted from the obligation to return a deposit by making a deposit in repayment on the ground that it is not known of the depositor without any negligence

[1] The latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Code refers to a case where a person who has performed the obligation cannot identify the creditor without negligence, is objectively a creditor or a person who has the right to receive the repayment, but the debtor cannot be identified even if he/she fulfills his/her care as a good manager.

[2] In principle, the title holder of a deposit account under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy is deemed to be the deposit holder, but in case where there is an express agreement between the contribution holder of the deposit and the financial institution to vest in the claim for return of the deposit account in a person who is not the deposit holder, or where it is deemed that there is an implied agreement on such content by taking into account the subjective and objective circumstances before and after the conclusion of the deposit contract

[3] Where the contributor and the title-holder of a deposit contract are different from each other, and both parties actively claim the right to deposit claims, and where a financial institution has acknowledged that there is sufficient room for doubt as to whether either party is a genuine deposit owner even if they perform their duty of care as a good manager, taking into account not only the time of payment of the deposit but also the situation at the time of the formation of the deposit contract, it shall be deemed that a financial institution as the debtor may make a repayment deposit on the ground of the creditor uncertainty under the latter part of

[4] The case holding that a financial institution which entered into a deposit contract was exempted from the obligation to return a deposit by making a deposit in repayment on the ground that it is not known of the depositor without any negligence

[1] Article 487 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 3 (1) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy, Article 105 of the Civil Code / [3] Article 487 of the Civil Code / [4] Article

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Da2583 decided Apr. 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1714), Supreme Court Decision 200Da55904 decided Dec. 22, 2000 (Gong2001Sang, 354), Supreme Court Decision 97Da5359 decided Nov. 13, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2855), Supreme Court Decision 99Da67031 decided Mar. 10, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 97Da6708) decided May 26, 2005 (Gong206364 decided Nov. 26, 200)

Han-hee (Attorney Lee-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

CT Bank (Attorney Jeong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

High Court Decision 201Na11446 decided May 1, 201

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na30120 delivered on June 22, 2004

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. First, we examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 3, and 4.

Article 487 (latter part) of the Civil Act provides that "where the person performing the obligation is objectively unable to identify the creditor without negligence, the creditor or the person performing the obligation to pay the deposit refers to the case where the debtor is unable to identify who is the creditor even if he fulfills his duty of due care (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da55904, Dec. 22, 2000, etc.). Meanwhile, in principle, it is difficult to regard the deposit title holder as the deposit holder under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy, however, if there is an express agreement between the deposit holder and the financial institution to vest the claim for the return of the deposit in the person who is not the deposit holder, or if it is deemed that there is an implied agreement in full view of the subjective and objective circumstances before and after the conclusion of the deposit contract, it can be deemed that a financial transaction contract with the fund holder as the deposit holder has been formed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da38067, Feb. 27, 2004).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the plaintiff and the supplementary intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the " supplementary intervenor") together with the money contributed by the supplementary intervenor to the defendant bank as the title-holder of the plaintiff's seal and affixed the seal to the plaintiff in the course of performing each of the deposits in this case, and upon the request of the supplementary intervenor, the supplementary intervenor's employee of the defendant bank entered into the aforementioned deposit-related customer computer system as "high deposit room (541129-2, omitted)" and entered into an explicit or implied agreement between the supplementary participant and the defendant bank to vest in the right to claim the above deposit in the supplementary participant's account. However, it is difficult to conclude that there is no special agreement as to the defendant bank's deposit in this case as valid as it constitutes a violation of the legal principles as to the defendant bank's deposit's right to claim reimbursement without any error in the misapprehension of the legal principles, and it is also justified in the court below's finding of facts as to the defendant bank's deposit in this case.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below held that the plaintiff was exempted from the obligation to return the deposit because it did not recognize that the plaintiff was not the deposit owner of each deposit contract of this case or the assisting participant was not the actual deposit owner, but merely constitutes a case where it is difficult for the defendant bank, which is the debtor, to know the real deposit owner without negligence on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and thus, the plaintiff was exempted from the obligation to return the deposit. Thus, the ground of appeal that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles

3. Conclusion

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 Young-ran (Presiding Justice)