logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울동부지방법원 2015.12.11 2015나24593
이자금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around February 20, 2002, the Plaintiff subscribed to a house subscription deposit account in Korea Exchange Bank (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank”) (hereinafter “Defendant”) on September 1, 2015. At the time of subscription, B, the father of the Plaintiff, entered into a subscription contract on behalf of the Plaintiff.

B. B deposited KRW 150,000 per month or KRW 200,000 per month from March 20, 2002 to July 12, 2004 for the Plaintiff by means of automatic transfer from the account in his name.

C. On February 25, 2005, the Plaintiff decided to convert the above passbook into a house subscription deposit passbook with a maturity of one year on February 25, 2005, and to re-deposit the principal without a separate agreement whenever the maturity comes.

The defendant deposited interest accrued each time when the maturity of the above house subscription deposit passbook arrives into the account B.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, response to the submission of financial transaction information to the foreign exchange bank, the whole purport of pleadings]

2. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not pay interest to the Plaintiff whenever the maturity of the subscription deposit passbook arrives, and thus, sought payment of the money stated in the purport of the claim.

3. The fact that the Defendant deposited interest into the account in the name of B, not the Plaintiff, is as seen earlier.

However, the following circumstances are revealed by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, 2, and 1, and 2, that is, the Plaintiff’s subscription deposit account via B, an agent, which is, the Plaintiff asserted that the existence of each of the above passbook should be known around 2013 even though the Plaintiff directly subscribed to the Defendant’s branch, despite having directly subscribed to the Defendant’s bank. In light of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff’s subscription deposit account is not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff’s payment of the house subscription deposit account.