(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.12.10 2014나10395

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.12.10 2014나10395

예금반환

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 70,000,000 for the Plaintiff and its related thereto from January 17, 2014 to April 2014.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff made, at the Defendant’s office, an annual interest rate of KRW 40 million and KRW 30 million, 30 million, 3% per annum, January 17, 2015, and the deposit account with the deposit title holder as the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

B. The instant deposit passbook was issued in the name of the Plaintiff, and the “real name verification pen” column was signed and sealed by the person in charge.

C. On February 24, 2014, the Plaintiff presented the passbook to the Defendant to cancel or refund the instant deposit. However, the Defendant shall exercise the right to withdraw the deposit only jointly with D at the time of entering into the instant deposit contract.

or D made a declaration of intention to delegate it to D, and it was rejected on the ground that there was no agreement with D on the request for the cancellation of deposit.

On the other hand, on April 7, 2014, the complaint of this case containing the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the deposit contract of this case was served on the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that this Court is significant or there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1-1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In a case where a deposit contract is concluded through a real name verification procedure pursuant to the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality and the fact is clearly indicated in the real name verification deposit agreement, it would be reasonable to interpret that the deposit title holder, the actor representing him/her, and the intent of a financial institution are to be the party to the deposit contract, and it would be reasonable to clarify the legal relationship with the party to the deposit contract.

In addition, the legal principles on the interpretation of the party to the deposit contract as a representative of the contracting party, when the contracting party to the deposit contract has entered into the deposit contract in the financial institution or when the third party, such as the fund contributor, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the

참조조문

-금융실명거래 및 비밀보장에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2020.06.12 2019노3304

-대전지방법원 2018.09.20 2017가단26963

-대법원 2009. 3. 19. 선고 2008다45828 전원합의체 판결

-대법원 2011. 5. 13. 선고 2009도5386 판결

-부산지방법원 2016.04.12 2015가단67075