[1] The degree of the duty of care required for the deposit official to examine the deposit payment claim

[2] In a case where one of the joint depositors notified the transfer of claims after transferring the right to claim the deposit to another joint depositor, but the third party prepared a claim for the recovery of the deposit under the joint depositor's name, and then forged the claim for the recovery of the deposit or made a claim for the recovery of the deposit along with the documents unlawfully issued, the case holding that the public official who approved the claim for the recovery of the deposit without meeting the procedural requirements or substantive requirements was negligent in performing his duties in breach of the duty

[3] The legislative intent of Article 32 of the former Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs, which provides that a person who intends to recover deposited goods shall attach a deposit document and a document evidencing the right to claim for recovery to the deposited goods, and whether the causal relationship between the negligence of the public official who authorized the claim for recovery of deposited goods and the damage suffered by the person who claimed for recovery of deposited goods may be recognized (affirmative)

[1] The deposit official shall have only the formal examination right to examine whether the deposit claim by the deposit party satisfies the procedural and substantive requirements stipulated in the relevant statutes, only with the written claim for recovery of deposited goods and accompanying documents. However, if there are reasonable grounds to deem that the claim for recovery of deposited goods fails to meet the prescribed requirements as a result of such examination, the deposit official shall not grant approval of the claim only if there are reasonable grounds to believe

[2] In a case where one of the joint depositors notified the transfer of the right to claim the deposit to another joint depositor after transferring the right to claim the deposit, but the third party prepared a claim for the recovery of the deposit under the joint depositor's name, and forged or fraudulently issued documents are attached to the above joint depositor, the case holding that even if the deposit public official has a formal examination right, it shall be deemed that there was a circumstance to doubt whether the claim for the deposit recovery is due to the genuine right holder, even if it is deemed that the deposit public official is in the joint depositor's name with the records of the deposit case in which the notification of the transfer of the right to claim the deposit is stated, and that the deposit public official who authorized the claim for the deposit recovery, which fails to meet the procedural requirements or substantive requirements, has breached

[3] Article 32 of the former Rules on the Management of Deposit (amended by Supreme Court Regulation No. 1957 of Sept. 21, 2005) provides that a person who intends to recover deposited goods shall attach not only a deposit in a written request for the recovery of deposited goods but also a document certifying the right to claim the recovery of deposited goods. This is to prevent a deposit official from incurring damage to a person who is not a person who claims the recovery of deposited goods through an examination as well as a procedural requirements for the claim for the recovery of deposited goods through confirmation of a written request for the recovery of deposited goods and its accompanying documents. Thus, a deposit official is obliged to accept the claim for recovery of deposited goods unless it is proved by the attached document that the person who claims the recovery of deposited goods has the right to claim the recovery of deposited goods. If the right to claim the recovery of deposited goods is authorized without proof in writing, it is highly probable that the person who claims the recovery of deposited goods will incur damage to the true person who claims the recovery of deposited goods.

[1] Articles 29 (see Article 32 of the current Rules of Deposits) and 32 (see Article 34 of the current Rules of Deposits) of the former Rules on the Management of Deposits (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 1957, Sep. 21, 2005); / [2] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act; Articles 29 (see Article 32 of the current Rules of Deposits) and 32 (see Article 34 of the current Rules of Deposits) of the former Rules on the Management of Deposits / [3] Article 32 (see Article 34 of the current Rules of Deposits); Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act; Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Yang Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na60 decided September 9, 2009

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal

Article 32 Subparag. 2 of the former Rules on the Management of Deposit (amended by the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1957 of Sept. 21, 2005) provides that a person who intends to recover deposited goods shall attach a document evidencing that he/she has the right to claim the collection of deposited goods to the written request for the collection of deposited goods shall be attached to the attached document in the written request for the collection of deposited goods. As such, the submission of the attached document cannot be said to have the substantive legal relationship as to the collection of deposited goods.

The court below determined that the plaintiff, one of the joint depositors, acquired the right to recover the deposit of this case from the non-party 1 corporation, the other joint depositors, and thereby has the right to claim recovery of the entire deposit of this case. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's findings of fact and decision are just, and there is no violation of Article 32 subparagraph 2 of the former Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs or misapprehension of the legal principles as to burden of proof, as alleged in the grounds for

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A deposit official shall have only a formal review right to examine whether the request for the payment of deposit by the deposit party satisfies the procedural and substantive requirements prescribed in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. However, if there are reasonable grounds to deem that the request for the payment of deposit fails to meet the prescribed requirements as a result of such examination, the deposit official shall not approve the request without delay.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on August 26, 2003, the plaintiff and the non-party 1 corporation deposited 4.2 billion won as the principal deposit to the non-party 2 corporation, and the non-party 1 corporation transferred the right to claim the recovery of deposit money of this case to the plaintiff on the same day, and notified the defendant of the transfer of the right to claim the recovery of deposit money of this case to the defendant on September 1, 2003. The notification was sent again to the defendant on July 29, 2004, and the notification was delivered to the defendant on August 2, 2004. The above notification was written on the cover of the deposit case record of this case, and the non-party 3 et al. conspired to obtain the deposit money of this case and forged or fraudulently issued the documents necessary for the claim for recovery of deposit money of this case and entrusted the affairs to the non-party 4 to the non-party 1 corporation by the defendant on November 5, 2004 by submitting the deposit document of this case to the court.

According to the above facts, even if a deposit official has a formal examination right, it can be easily known that the plaintiff and the non-party 1 joint corporation's claim for the recovery of the deposit of this case in the name of the plaintiff and the non-party 1 corporation is incompatible with the relation of rights according to the previous notification of assignment of claims. Furthermore, when the plaintiff and the non-party 1 corporation make a large amount of claim for recovery of deposit of this case in the name of 4.2 billion won, without clarifying the existing relation of assignment of claims, the claim for recovery of the deposit of this case in the name of the preceding act without clarifying the existing relation of assignment of claims, is an unusual reason for doubt as to whether the claim for recovery of deposit of this case is made by the real right holder. Thus, the deposit official should confirm the true purport of the claim for recovery of deposit of this case, and should have ordered correction of a written request for recovery of deposit or accompanied documents, or should have received the claim for recovery of the deposit of this case in the name of the joint owner.

Although the reasoning of the court below is inappropriate, the judgment of the court below that the deposited official was negligent in performing his duties in approving the claim for recovery of the deposit money of this case is just in its conclusion, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. The allegation in the grounds of appeal that there is an error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the duty of care and negligence of the deposit official, is premised on the premise that the court below recognized only the negligence as to the part of the deposit collection claim of the non-party 1 corporation and did not recognize the negligence as to the part of the plaintiff's deposit collection claim. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is obvious that the court below judged that the entire act of authorizing the deposit collection claim of

B. As to the causal relationship between the negligence of deposit officials and the damage

If the contents of official duties imposed on a public official are not merely for the public’s abstract interest or for the purpose of protecting the individual’s specific safety and interests entirely or incidentally from the members of the society, the State shall be liable to compensate for the damages suffered by an individual due to the public official’s breach of such official duties to the extent that the proximate causal relation is acknowledged. In such a case, in determining the existence of proximate causal relation, the State shall comprehensively take into account not only the probability of the occurrence of the general result, but also the purpose of Acts and subordinate statutes and other rules of conduct imposing official duties, the attitude of harmful acts, and the degree of damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da2631, Sept. 22, 1998; 2005Da62747, Dec. 27, 2007; 2006Da8798, Jul. 23, 2009).

Article 32 of the former Rules on the Management of Deposit provides that a person who intends to recover deposited goods shall attach not only a deposit certificate but also a document evidencing that he/she has the right to claim the deposit in the written request for the recovery of deposited goods. This is to prevent a deposit official from having the obligation to examine both the procedural requirements for the claim for the recovery of deposited goods and the substantive requirements through the confirmation of the written request for the recovery of deposited goods and the attached documents, and thereby preventing the transfer of deposited goods to an unentitled person who is not the person who has the right to claim the recovery of deposited goods through such examination. Therefore, the deposit official shall accept the claim for the recovery of deposited goods unless it is proved by the attached document that the person who has the right to claim the recovery of deposited goods has the right to claim the recovery of deposited goods. If the claim for the recovery of deposited goods is authorized without proof in writing, it is highly probable that the person who has the right to claim

According to the above facts, in this case, the deposit official neglected the duty of examination required by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, thereby authorizing the claim for recovery of the deposit of this case which did not meet the procedural requirements and substantive requirements, and thus, Nonparty 3, etc. could have received the deposit money. Since it directly caused damage to the plaintiff who is the right to claim recovery of the deposit money, it is reasonable to view that there exists a proximate causal relation between the negligence of

Nevertheless, the court below determined that there was no causal relationship between the negligence of the public official in charge of deposit as to the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for recovery of deposit and the damages suffered by the Plaintiff relating to 1/2 of the instant deposit. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on proximate causal relationship, and it is obvious that such error affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)