Criteria for determining the principle of deposit in registered deposits in financial institutions

In the case of a registered deposit in a financial institution, it is reasonable to see that a person who actually controls a deposit without making a nominal leisure time, regardless of whom the financial institution believed to be a deposit owner, as the deposit owner, is the deposit owner himself/herself, or through private or agent with the intent to make his/her own deposit by his/her own contribution.

Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 702 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellee] Korea National Mutual Savings and Finance Company (Attorney Song Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na2453 delivered on February 13, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below decided that the plaintiff delivered 20 million won to the non-party 1 at the beginning of September 1983 and requested the non-party 1 to make a deposit in the name of the plaintiff, and that the non-party 1 received the above amount at the time of issuance to the non-party 2 who was the executive director of the above credit cooperative at the time of the above request. The non-party 2 deposited 10 million won at the above credit cooperative on September 12 of the same year and the remaining amount of 10 million won was not paid to the non-party 2 at the time of issuance of the above deposit account. The non-party 2 did not know that the non-party 2 received the above deposit in the name of the non-party 3 at the time of issuance of the above deposit account at the time of the above non-party 2's deposit account and the non-party 4 million won was not issued to the non-party 2 at the time of issuance of each of the above bank deposits at the time of the above non-party 2's request to receive the above deposit.

However, in the case of a registered deposit in a financial institution, it is reasonable to see that the deposit account holder is a person who actually controls the deposit regardless of the name, and regardless of whom the financial institution believed to be the deposit holder, or, in other words, a person who directly, with his own intent to make the deposit as his own deposit by his own contribution, or through an agent.

Furthermore, as found by the testimony of Nonparty 2, Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 5 adopted by the court below, the plaintiff paid money to Nonparty 1 to make a deposit in the name of the plaintiff in the plaintiff's money, and the above Nonparty 1 transferred the purport of the request to Nonparty 2 and made money to the borrower. Although Nonparty 2 made a deposit contrary to the purport of the plaintiff's request, even if the deposit was made by the above Nonparty 2, the above deposit claim shall be deemed to be the deposit owner, if the plaintiff was in possession and custody of the plaintiff by delivering to the plaintiff the above promissory notes and the reporter's name in the name of the above bank, corresponding to the certificate of deposit received from the above bank.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is justified in misunderstanding the legal principles as to deposit holders, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)