In case of depositing money in a bank by taking advantage of the name of a third party, the party to the deposit contract is a person who actually deposits in the bank, and such person shall be the principal regardless of his name.

Article 702 (2) of the Civil Act, Article 702 (1) of the Civil Code, and Article 702 (2) of the Civil Code, and Article 1058 of the Civil Code, in a case where a deposit is made in the name of a third party

Article 106 of the Civil Act, Article 539 of the Civil Act, Article 598 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Korean Bank, Inc.

Intervenor of an independent party

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na1825, 1826 delivered on January 28, 1972

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney and the grounds of appeal by the attorney of the independent party shall be examined together.

According to the facts established by the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 withdrawn the common deposit claim of 2.5 million won which was held in the paper branch of the defendant bank and again notified the non-party 2 of his seal impression submission by mail verifying that he would use his seal stamp and recover his deposit. The non-party 1 would have taken over the above non-party 1's deposit claim on September 30, 1970 on the following day, but at that time, the non-party 1 had already withdrawn his deposit and deposited the above non-party 2. The non-party 2 was refused payment on the ground that the plaintiff's attachment and assignment order was served after the plaintiff was delivered. The court below found that the non-party 1 was in a position to take part in the procedure, and that the defendant bank did not refuse to take over the deposit claim to the non-party 2 without any justifiable reason that the non-party 1 would not have the effect of taking over the claim against the non-party 1's deposit claim.

However, in the case of depositing money in a bank using the name of a third party in the name of the party to the deposit contract, the party to the deposit contract is the person who actually deposited in the bank. Therefore, in this case, it is clear that the deposit account holder in the above name of the third party 2,50,000 won against the defendant is the non-party 1, and therefore, the seizure and assignment order issued to the above non-party 2 against the defendant is an invalid order where there is no seized claim and all claims. Meanwhile, it is obvious that the non-party 1 is the creditor of the above deposit claim and the intervenor is the above non-party, and if the defendant legally approved it, the defendant has no justifiable reason to refuse payment against the intervenor. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles on the deposit contract for the use of another person's name. This judgment cannot be affected by the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed in this respect, and there is a reason for the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, according to the consistent opinion of the participating judges, the remaining grounds of appeal shall be omitted, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the original court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court