Whether an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer from a bank account transaction bank regardless of whether there is a legal relationship between the transferor and the payee, which is the cause of account transfer, in case where the transferor has transferred the account to the bank account of the payee (affirmative); and in such case, whether the client may seek non-permission of compulsory execution against the said deposit claim made by the payee due to the absence of a legal relationship which is the cause of account transfer (negative)

Articles 702 and 741 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 2005Da59673 Decided March 24, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239 Decided November 29, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 2031)

Plaintiff

K&C Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Song Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Na10347 Decided July 30, 2009

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Account transfer is a means of safe and prompt moving of funds at low cost between banks and bank stores. In order to facilitate the smooth handling of large amount of funds transfer between many people, a bank acting as a intermediary without involvement in the existence of legal relations, which are the cause of the transfer of funds. Therefore, in cases of cash transfer or account transfer, only the basic terms and conditions of deposit transactions, which serve as a deposit when deposit is recorded in the ledger of deposit transactions, and in the absence of such special circumstances as the existence of legal relations, which are the cause of account transfer between the payee and the bank. It is interpreted that a deposit contract is established between the payee and the bank, and that it should be decided upon the existence of legal relations, which are the cause of account transfer, between the payee and the bank. It is interpreted that a deposit contract is established between the payee and the bank, regardless of whether there exists legal relations as the cause of account transfer between the payee and the bank. It is interpreted that the payee’s right to claim the above amount of deposit account transfer should be 0. 2. It is interpreted that there is no reasonable ground for account transfer between the payee and the account transfer claim. 207.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the judgment below, comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted in the judgment, it was found that Plaintiff Liman requested the Plaintiff to lend money directly to the bond company in order to repay its debts to the bond company, and notified the account holder of the company’s account by requesting the Plaintiff to inform the Defendant of the account. On September 29, 2006, the Plaintiff acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 25 million to the account of this case to the account of this case on September 29, 2006, to the account of this case, the Plaintiff was erroneously designated by the Plaintiff, and the Co-Defendant of the court of first instance rejected the Plaintiff’s right to KRW 25 million, and the effect of the collection order of KRW 25 million is not limited to the account holder’s deposit account of this case between the Defendant and the creditor of this case, and the Plaintiff’s joint account holder’s deposit account of this case, and the collection order of KRW 5 million cannot be acknowledged in relation to the account holder’s deposit account of this case.

However, in light of the above legal principles, when the plaintiff, who is the transferring requester, transferred the above deposit account to the co-defendant of the first instance court, barring any other special circumstance, the contract amount equivalent to the amount of transfer between the plaintiff and the co-defendant of the first instance court, regardless of whether there exists a legal relation as a cause of the transfer of the bank account between the plaintiff and the co-defendant of the first instance court, regardless of whether there is a legal relation as the cause of the transfer of the bank account between the plaintiff and the co-defendant of the first instance court, and the co-defendant of the first instance court, acquired the above amount of deposit claim against the bank of the payee, the co-defendant of the first instance court, which is the bank of the above deposit transaction with the payee. Thus, it is not deemed that the plaintiff acquires the right to prevent the transfer of the above deposit claim, and it is not possible to seek the denial of compulsory execution against the above deposit claim of the defendant, the plaintiff's claim is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the transfer of the

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)