Whether a remitter acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer to a receiving bank, regardless of whether there exists a legal relationship between a remitter and the payee, which is the cause of account transfer, in cases where a remitter has transferred a account transfer to the payee’s deposit account (affirmative); and in such cases, whether a remitter may file a claim for return of unjust enrichment with a receiving bank that is not the payee on the ground that there is no legal relationship which is the cause of account transfer (negative)

The account transfer is a means for safe and prompt transfer of funds between banks and bank stores through the remittance procedure. In order to facilitate the smooth handling of large amount of funds transfer between many people, a bank acting as a intermediary is a system under which the bank performs the act without involvement in the existence and contents of legal relations, which are the cause of the transfer of funds. Therefore, in case of cash transfer or account transfer, it is limited to the basic terms and conditions of deposit transaction that is a deposit at the time when deposit is recorded in the ledger of deposit. In the absence of special circumstances, such as the existence of legal relations, which are the cause of the account transfer between the remitter and the bank, between the remitter and the payee, if the remitter made account transfer between the payee and the receiving bank, regardless of whether there exists legal relations, which are the cause of the account transfer between the remitter and the payee, a deposit contract equivalent to the amount of account transfer is established between the receiving bank and the receiving bank. In this case, regardless of whether there is a legal relationship between the remitter and the receiving bank, the payee does not have a right to claim the return of account transfer.

Articles 702 and 741 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 2005Da59673 Decided March 24, 2006

Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (Law Firm New century, Attorneys Yang Ho-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Industrial Bank of Korea (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Yoon Yong-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Na1196 Decided June 29, 2007

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The account transfer is a system under which a bank, which acts as a broker, performs without involvement in the existence, contents, etc. of legal relations which are the causes of the transfer of each fund, in order to manage the large amount of funds safely and promptly at low cost through the remittance procedure between banks and bank stores, and to manage the large amount of funds smoothly among many people;

Therefore, in the case of cash transfer or account transfer, only the basic terms and conditions of deposit transaction which form a deposit at the time when the deposit is recorded in the ledger, and in the absence of special circumstances, such as the existence of legal relations between the remitter and the payee as the cause of account transfer between the remitter and the bank, when the remitter has made account transfer between the remitter and the payee, a deposit contract equivalent to the amount of account transfer should be established between the remitter and the receiving bank regardless of whether there exists legal relations as the cause of account transfer between the remitter and the receiving bank. (See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da59673, Mar. 24, 2006). In this case, even though there is no legal relations as the cause of account transfer between the remitter and the receiving bank, if the payee acquired a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer due to account transfer, the remitter's right to claim the return of unjust enrichment shall not be acquired from the receiving bank. (See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da59673, Mar. 24, 2006).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff was requested to transfer the money to the account under the name of the non-party 1 to the non-party 2 corporation at the time of the account transfer to the non-party 1 corporation due to the non-party 1's default on October 19, 2005 due to the fact that the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter "non-party 1 corporation") opened the business on November 23, 2005 due to the non-party 1's failure to pay for the Internet banking, and recognized the fact that the plaintiff was requested to transfer the money to the account under the name of the non-party 1 corporation to the non-party 2 corporation which is the customer at the time of the account transfer to the non-party 1 corporation. Since the account transfer to the plaintiff who is the remitter was made without any legal grounds, the non-party 1 corporation cannot be deemed to have the plaintiff's claim for the above account transfer against the defendant, which is the receiving bank.

However, in light of the above legal principles, in this case, unless there are other special circumstances, when the plaintiff, who is the remitter, transferred the account to the bank account of the non-party 1, the contract amount equivalent to the transfer amount is established regardless of whether there exists a legal relationship which is the cause of the account transfer between the plaintiff and the non-party 1, and it is interpreted that the non-party 1 acquired the above amount's deposit claim against the defendant. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the defendant obtained any profit. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below accepting the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the defendant obtained unjust profit without any legal ground, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on account transfer, and the ground of appeal pointing

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)