logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.07.14 2013다30752
전부금
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined as follows: (a) on the ground that the B-building housing association (hereinafter “instant association”) and the Poco Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Poco Construction”) had intent to open the instant deposit account in a joint name; and (b) the Defendant confirmed such intent and concluded a deposit contract with both the instant association and Poco construction as the other party and opened the instant deposit account; and (c) determined that the instant association and the instant association constituted a joint party to the deposit contract with respect to the instant deposit account.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the method of determining the party to a deposit contract under the real name of financial business entity, or by violating the Supreme Court precedents.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, it could not be deemed that a substantial alteration was made between the seized claim against which the provisional seizure order of this case was issued and the seized claim of this case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles as to the specification of claims subject to seizure in provisional seizure, by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

3. In a case where the third ground of appeal provides a joint deposit in the bank and the bank shall exercise its rights together with the bank, if the bank deposited the same business funds in the joint name, it shall be a bond.

arrow