logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.12.19 2019가합208490
예금반환청구권
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) deposited KRW 326,572,472 in the CUnion’s account (Account Number D) in the name of the Deceased’s name, which was derived from the funeral of agricultural products with Nonparty B (hereinafter “the deceased”).

(2) The Plaintiff and the Deceased’s heir transferred to the Plaintiff the deposit claim of this case (hereinafter “the deposit claim of this case”). The deposit claim of this case is a profit derived from performing a funeral business together with the Plaintiff and the Deceased, and as such, the ownership of 1/2 shares were owned by the deceased and the Plaintiff, respectively. However, the heir of this case renounced his inheritance and became a sole owner of the Plaintiff’s deposit claim of this case pursuant to Article 267 of the Civil Act.

Nevertheless, C.C., the debtor of the instant deposit claim, demanded the Plaintiff to confirm that the Plaintiff is the creditor of the instant deposit claim, and all the inheritors of the deceased lost their standing to be a party to the instant lawsuit by giving up inheritance, and thus, the Plaintiff seeks to confirm that the instant deposit claim belongs to the Plaintiff against the Defendant, a public institution.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The gist of the defendant's defense 1) The defendant does not dispute whether the plaintiff is the true creditor of the deposit claim of this case, and there is no interest in it, so there is no concern that the defendant may cause any apprehensions or risks to the plaintiff's right or status. Since the deposit claim of this case is not a right to be publicly announced by the state agency's registration, etc., it does not have the defendant's duty to confirm the plaintiff's creditor status. Therefore, the defendant does not have the defendant's standing to be the defendant. Thus, even if the plaintiff is recognized as the plaintiff's creditor from the defendant, even if it is recognized as the plaintiff's status as the creditor, the defendant'

arrow