(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.02.04 2014가단27069

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) 전주지방법원 2015.02.04 2014가단27069

예금

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is the wife of D who died on July 19, 2013 (hereinafter “the deceased”), and Plaintiff B and C are the offspring of the deceased.

B. On February 22, 2013, two cases of a term deposit contract between the Defendant and the Deceased were concluded with a maturity of one year (hereinafter “each of the said deposits contract”) and KRW 30 million and KRW 20 million were deposited to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant deposit claim”). 【The fact that there is no dispute over the ground for recognition】

2. Determination as to the claim

A. 1) The party to the instant deposit contract is the deceased, and the Plaintiffs cancelled the instant deposit contract after the deceased’s death, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs, who are the inheritor of the deceased, with the money equivalent to the Plaintiffs’ share of inheritance among the said deposit claims. 2) The party to the instant deposit contract was the party to the instant deposit contract, and E terminated the instant deposit contract on July 22, 2013, and the Defendant paid the entire amount of the instant deposit claim to E.

B. In the event that a deposit contract is concluded through a real name verification procedure under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality and the fact of the real name verification is clearly stated in the deposit contract statement, it would be reasonable to interpret that the deposit title holder, the actor, and the intent of the financial institution representing him/her would be the party to the deposit contract.

However, it is reasonable to view the fund contributor other than the deposit title holder as the deposit party if there is a clear agreement that the deposit contract with the deposit title holder should be excluded from the claim for return of deposit under the deposit title holder by denying the deposit contract with the fund contributor and concluding a deposit contract with the fund contributor.

참조조문

-금융실명거래 및 비밀보장에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-대법원 2011. 9. 29. 선고 2011다47169 판결

-대법원 2017.06.29 2016다277293

-대전지방법원 2018.09.20 2017가단26963

-의정부지방법원 2014.08.26 2014가단314

-광주지방법원 2018.02.06 2017가단1108