In a case where a fund contributed for a specific purpose other than a partnership business has been deposited under the joint name of contributors for the purpose of prevention and surveillance so that it can not be withdrawn independently before the achievement of its purpose, whether the bank, upon receipt of a seizure and collection order against one of the joint account holders, may refuse payment upon entering into a joint return agreement with the joint account holders on the joint deposit claim of the joint account collection creditors (negative)

In a case where a joint account is opened in a bank and the rights of the bank are to be jointly exercised, if a joint account is opened in the joint account of the bank. However, if a joint account holder deposits money shared by each joint account holder for a specific purpose other than a business, and the joint account is opened in the joint account for the purpose of preventing and supervising the joint account holder from withdrawing his/her own deposit before the purpose of the joint account is achieved, a single deposit account is divided in quantity, and the joint account holder belongs to each joint account holder, and each joint account holder belongs to the joint account holder, and the right to manage and dispose of his/her own share to each joint account holder is vested in the joint account holder. However, a creditor of one joint account holder can execute the joint account after obtaining a seizure and collection order, etc. on the corresponding share of the deposit account holder. On the other hand, the bank delivered such seizure, etc. can refuse payment of the deposit claim based on the seizure order of the execution creditor and the joint account holder's joint account holder's joint account return procedure.

Articles 278 and 408 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korean Bank, Inc.

Yangsan Construction Co., Ltd.

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Daejeon High Court Decision 2002Na6980 delivered on January 10, 2003

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

1. We examine the grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

In a case where a joint account is opened in a bank and the rights of the bank are to be exercised jointly, if the joint account is opened in a quasi-joint-ownership relationship. However, if the joint account holder deposits money shared by him for a specific purpose other than the joint account for a specific purpose, and the joint account holder opens a joint account for the purpose of preventing and supervising his own deposit before the purpose of the joint account is achieved, one of the joint account holders can be divided and jointly reverted to each joint account holder. Each joint account holder's right to manage and dispose of his own share of each joint account holder belongs to each joint account holder. However, it is impossible for all of the joint account holders to jointly file a claim for payment of the bank by a special agreement for joint return (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da31825, Apr. 26, 1994; 2002Da5908, Oct. 14, 2004; 1) the joint account holder's right to claim the return of the deposit can not be held as a seizure order by the joint account holder.

According to the facts and records duly admitted by the court below, the defendant's construction cost according to the construction contract between the Postal Business Corporation (hereinafter "Postal Business"). The non-party 1 opened the deposit account of this case in the above three names to jointly manage the sale price of the building to be newly constructed on the land in which Postal Business was decided, and the non-party 1 wants to prevent and monitor the purpose of opening and operating the account of this case to prevent any one of the joint holders from withdrawing their deposits at will. Thus, the defendant, non-party 1, and the Postal Business cannot be deemed to have jointly owned the deposit claim of this case. Rather, the right to manage and dispose of each of the shares of the deposit claim of this case belongs to each of them. Thus, in this case where the non-party 2's provisional attachment decision, seizure and collection order of the Postal Business Corporation are competing with the shares of Postal Business, the plaintiff's deposit account of this case is equivalent to the above Postal Business Act's 26.16.26.26.26.

Therefore, based on the facts of the judgment of the court below, it is just in its conclusion that the plaintiff's deposit for execution of the deposit in the judgment of the court below is valid on the ground that the purpose of the joint account holder of the deposit claim of this case has already been achieved and the actual deposit holder remains friendly only because it is agreed to pay or pay all the construction cost and land price to the defendant and the non-party 1 by a separate method, and it is not reasonable in its conclusion that the plaintiff's deposit for execution of the deposit in the judgment of the court below on behalf of the above creditors in relation to friendly unemployment is valid, and there

2. 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 Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)