In a case where several depositors jointly deposit one deposit amount, whether it shall be deemed to have been deposited at an equal rate (affirmative), and even if the actual share of the depositors inside are different, whether it is a matter to be resolved inside the depositors (affirmative)

Since the contents of a deposit made by a depositor are determined formally by the entry of the deposit, if several depositors do not divide the amount of deposit and enter the same amount of deposit jointly in the form of a single deposit, the depositer shall be deemed to have made a deposit in equal ratio, and even if the amount of actual share inside the depositer is different, this is a matter to be resolved separately among the depositors inside the bank. This legal doctrine also applies to the proportion of the ownership of the right to claim for recovery of the deposit upon the cancellation of the security if the deposit is deposited in the joint name for the security of the suspension of compulsory execution. Therefore, where a third party issues a seizure and collection order on the right to claim for recovery of the deposit of another joint deposit, the seizure and collection order takes effect within the limit of the deposit amount by equal ratio between the depositer. Even if a joint depositer actually contributed to the full amount of the deposit, this is merely a reason to claim only within the internal relation among the joint depositors, and thus, the depositer who

Articles 122, 125, 500(1), 501, and 502(3) of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 227 and 229 of the Civil Execution Act

Supreme Court Decision 2011Da79562 Decided March 29, 2012

Manager of C&T Co., Ltd. (Bae & Yang LLC, Attorneys Sick-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Law Firm oriented, Attorneys Park Dong-ju et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na52938 decided April 18, 2014

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. After finding the facts as stated in its holding, the court below held that in the case of this case, the claim for the recovery of the deposit due to the cancellation of the security deposit made under the joint name of the Co., Ltd. and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 shall belong to CTTTT (hereinafter "CTT") and CTTTTTT, the deposit as the joint guarantee provided by multiple applicants for the suspension of compulsory execution under the appeal against the judgment of provisional execution, is ordinary damages arising from the impossibility of provisional execution until the execution creditor rendered a judgment on the merits of the appeal, and where the execution creditor claims for the recovery of the deposit due to the cancellation of the security in a relationship with the effect of the security right of the respondent, the ownership and the ratio of the claim for the recovery of the deposit shall be determined according to the substantive effect of the claim for the recovery of the deposit, which is the joint deposit, based on the title of execution concerning the basic claim subject to the suspension of execution, and thus, the claim for the recovery and collection of the deposit shall be deleted in its entirety.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

Since the contents deposited by a depositor are determined formally by the entry of the deposit, if several depositors do not divide the amount of deposit and jointly enter the same amount of deposit in the form of a single deposit, the depositer shall be deemed to have deposited at an equal ratio. Even if the substantial share of the depositer inside the depositer is different, this is a matter to be resolved separately within the depositer’s internal part (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da79562, Mar. 29, 2012). This legal doctrine applies likewise to the proportion of the ownership of the right to claim for recovery of deposit upon the cancellation of security in cases where a joint deposit is deposited in the name of the joint depositor for the security of the suspension of compulsory execution (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da79562, Mar. 29, 2012). Accordingly, where a third party issues a seizure and collection order on the right to claim collection of deposit by another joint deposit, such seizure and collection order is effective within the limit of the deposit amount by equal ratio among the deposit depositors. Even if a joint depositer has actually contributed to the full amount of deposit.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the seizure and collection order for the right to claim the deposit for the suspension of compulsory execution against the depositor who failed to contribute the deposit money is invalid on the ground that the ownership and ratio of the right to claim the deposit for the suspension of compulsory execution are determined according to the substance relationship with which the person bears the money. In this regard, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the reversion of the right to claim the deposit money, which affected the conclusion

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)