[Judgment of the court below]

Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 21, 2008

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Gadan278698 Decided November 22, 2007

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 42,00,000 won with 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the judgment of the appellate court, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the plaintiff extended the plaintiff's claim as to the damages for delay in the trial).

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a special corporation established to protect depositors, etc. and to maintain the stability of the financial system by paying insurance money equivalent to deposits to depositors within the scope set forth in the Depositor Protection Act, in lieu of insured financial institutions, where an insured incident under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Depositor Protection Act, such as the suspension of payment of claims such as deposits to depositors of a financial institution (insured financial institution)

B. On February 13, 2006, the Plaintiff’s husband terminated a term deposit which was previously deposited in a good mutual savings bank (hereinafter “instant bank”), and again deposited KRW 49,212,873 in the instant bank as a term deposit. On the same day, the Plaintiff’s account was opened in the name of the Plaintiff and deposited KRW 42 million on the same day (hereinafter “instant deposit”). The said KRW 42 million deposited in the instant deposit was the amount withdrawn from another financial institution under the name of the Nonparty on the same day.

C. On September 8, 2006, the Defendant’s insured financial institution suspended the payment of claims, such as deposits, against the instant bank. The Defendant decided to pay the insurance proceeds on March 17, 2007.

D. The Defendant paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff and the Nonparty as the provisional payment of insurance money. However, on March 17, 2007, the Nonparty notified the Nonparty of the fact that “the instant deposit is a deposit of the Nonparty, and thus, the Nonparty should pay insurance money within the limit of KRW 50 million as determined by the Depositor Protection Act,” and thereafter, paid insurance money after deducting the said provisional payment from the Nonparty.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul 1, 8 through 14, and 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

As the Plaintiff has contributed to the formation of property, it received KRW 42 million from her husband to the bank of this case directly as the Nonparty, and visited the bank of this case, such as the Nonparty, and thus, the deposit owner of this case is the Plaintiff. Since an insured incident prescribed by the Depositor Protection Act occurred, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the deposit owner of this case, the insurance money equivalent to the deposit amount and the damages for delay.

(2) Defendant

Although the name of the deposit holder is the Plaintiff, the deposit of this case is merely opened with the name of the Plaintiff for the purpose of avoiding the protection limit under the Depositor Protection Act by the Nonparty. Since the Defendant paid the insurance money to the Nonparty as the actual deposit owner, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

B. Determination

(1) Pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy, a financial institution must conduct financial transactions in the real name of customers. As such, in principle, the deposit account holder shall be deemed as the deposit account holder, but in case where there is an explicit or implied agreement between the deposit contributor and the financial institution to vest the claim for the return of deposit in the person who is not the deposit account holder due to special circumstances, a financial transaction contract with the deposit account holder is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da17877, Jun. 24, 2005

(2) We examine the following circumstances, i.e., the money required for the instant deposit, as seen earlier, was the money withdrawn from other financial institutions under the name of the Nonparty on the date of opening the instant deposit. ii) The written application for the instant deposit was made by the Nonparty on a part-time basis, such as the Non-Party’s written application for the deposit transaction under the name of the Non-Party; iii) the Nonparty’s seal is registered and used due to the transaction seal stamp of the instant deposit; iv) the password used for the instant deposit transaction was the password of the Non-Party’s bank; v) the Nonparty’s bank opened and managed the instant deposit in the name of the Plaintiff for the purpose of obtaining protection under the Depositor Protection Act, and the Nonparty did not visit the Nonparty’s deposit account under the name of the Non-Party, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant deposit return was not made by the non-party, as otherwise alleged in the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim and the extended claim in the trial of the court of first instance shall be dismissed for all reasons. The judgment of the court of first instance on the plaintiff's claim in the trial of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason, and the expanded claim in the trial of the court of first instance is dismissed for lack of reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Sung-chul (Presiding Judge)