(a) Criteria for determining deposit certificates in registered deposits;

(b) Whether the right of representation held by a person entrusted with the conclusion of a contract for a deposit naturally includes the right of representation to receive or dispose of a loan with the security of such deposit (negative);

(c) The case holding that where Party A, a bank, entered into a term deposit contract as collateral between Party B and B who entered into the said contract under the name of Party B, etc., and Party B, etc., sign and sealed the relevant contract, such as the contract to establish a term deposit contract as collateral, there is negligence on the part of Party B, and thus, an expression agent in excess of his authority cannot be established on the ground that Party B was authorized to enter into a term deposit contract

(d) Where it is recognized that the terms and conditions of a fixed deposit transaction include the seal imprint affixed on the written request for deposit and the secret code, compared to the withdrawal, and dealt with it, in any case, whether the special agreement to be deemed effective can serve as a basis for recognizing the bank's exemption from liability even in a case where the bank is recognized to have failed to fulfill its ordinary due diligence (negative)

(a) In the case of a registered deposit in a financial institution, a person who actually controls a deposit regardless of whom the financial institution believed to be a deposit owner, and who, on his own or through his own investment, wishes to make his own deposit as a deposit owner, shall be deemed to be the deposit owner;

(b) The right of representation held by a person entrusted with the conclusion of a contract for deposit does not include as a matter of course a loan, or the right of representation, to receive or dispose of the loan as security.

C. The case holding that in the case where Gap, a bank, entered into a term deposit contract under the name of Eul, etc., and applied for a loan immediately when entering into a contract for a term deposit under the name of Byung, etc., and entered into a pledge contract for the term deposit contract and the term deposit contract under the name of Byung, etc., Eul prepared required documents, and Eul signed and sealed Eul's seal on the signature and seal of Byung, etc. among the joint and several guarantee contract, the contract for a term deposit, the pledge contract for a term deposit, and the contract for a term deposit, signed and sealed Eul's seal on the signature and seal of Byung, etc. from among the contract for a term deposit and the contract for a term deposit, and attached Gap's signature and seal to the third party's joint and several guarantee consultation statement, etc., and then Gap entered into the third party's joint and several guarantee agreement and added Eul's signature and seal to the person in charge of confirming it, even if it was believed that Eul had the authority to do so, it cannot be established beyond the authority

(d) Where the terms and conditions of a fixed deposit transaction recognize that the seal imprint and the secret code affixed to the written request for a deposit are inconsistent with those of the withdrawal in advance at the time of the payment of the deposit, and in any case, there is a special agreement to regard the deposit as effective, but such special agreement cannot serve as a basis for recognizing the bank’s exemption from liability, even if the bank is deemed to have failed to meet

(a) Articles 105, 702, 118, 126, and 470 of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10060 Decided October 28, 1987 (Gong1987, 1784) (Gong1989, 250) decided Dec. 27, 198, 91Da23073 decided Jan. 21, 1992 (Gong1992, 882) (Gong1976, 9277) (Gong1977) decided Jul. 13, 1982 (Gong1976, 9277) D. Supreme Court Decision 74Da2083 (Gong1975, 8464) decided May 27, 1975 (Gong1975, 19464), 192Da194294 decided Apr. 19, 194)

Heon-do et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Hanil Bank, Inc., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and four others

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na46873 delivered on April 3, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the plaintiffs were the deposit holders, who were all residents in Japan-U.S. by delegating the conclusion of the deposit contract with the defendant bank to the non-party 1 through the non-party Shin Young-dong Branch, and the non-party 1 confirmed that the contract of the registered term deposit of this case was concluded in the name of the plaintiffs with the money contributed by the plaintiffs at the new branch of the defendant bank, and that the deposit holders

In a registered deposit with a financial institution, a person who actually controls a deposit regardless of whom the financial institution believed to be a deposit owner, and who has made a deposit contract by himself/herself or through his/her agent with his/her own intent to make the deposit as a deposit owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu946, Oct. 28, 1987; 91Da23073, Jan. 21, 1992; 91Da23073, Oct. 21, 1992). According to the records, the plaintiffs shall contribute the funds, send the seals and seals to Nonparty 1, and keep them in custody after receiving a return of the passbook and seal of the term deposit contract in the name of the plaintiffs, if necessary, the above plaintiffs sent them to Nonparty 1, and thereby, it shall be deemed as the deposit owner, who actually controls the term deposit contract in this case. Thus, the judgment below is justified and the judgment below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the deposit owner's own interest in this case.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. On the second and third grounds for appeal

After Nonparty 1 entered into the instant term deposit contract, the lower court determined that Nonparty 1 did not directly enter into the instant term deposit contract under the name of the Defendant and the instant term deposit contract (the Plaintiff’s signature and seal was directly made by Nonparty 1) under the name of Kim Sung-won, and that Nonparty 1 withdrawn the instant term deposit in the name of Nonparty 1 and paid out the Defendant’s loan to Nonparty 1 as part of the instant term deposit in the name of Nonparty 1, and that the Defendant refused to pay the instant term deposit in the name of Nonparty 1, etc. on the ground that Nonparty 1 did not have any authority to directly provide or dispose of the instant term deposit in the name of Nonparty 1’s signature and seal, and that Nonparty 1 did not enter into the instant term deposit contract under the name of Nonparty 1’s own or Kim Sung-won, and that Nonparty 1 did not have any authority to do so under the name of Nonparty 1’s signature and seal on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and that Nonparty 1 did not have any right to do so under the name of the Plaintiff’s deposit account holder or its representative’s seal.

First of all, the right of representation held by the person entrusted with the conclusion of a deposit contract does not include the right of representation to receive loans or to dispose of such deposits as security. In addition, considering the records, the court below's above evidence cooking and fact finding is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or violation of the reasoning of the principle of free evaluation of evidence like lawsuits. Under the above facts, even if the defendant believed that the defendant was authorized to conclude a contract on security loan, a pledge contract, or a contract on deposit transactions on behalf of the non-party 1 as above, it cannot be deemed that there is any negligence in trust, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is no reasonable ground to believe that an expression agent exceeding the authority under Article 126 of the Civil Act is not established, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the conclusion of a contract on security by the non-party 1 as a quasi-party 1's agent and the defendant's allegation that the above contract on security payment was made within the scope of the above facts stated in the judgment below's assertion that there is no error in the above.

All arguments are without merit.

3. On the fourth ground for appeal

In a case where the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense of the above exemption clause is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the special exemption clause as stipulated in the contract for a term deposit transaction between the plaintiffs and the defendant, even if there is a special agreement that it shall be treated as valid in any case, since the special agreement can not be a ground for recognizing the defendant's exemption even if the defendant is acknowledged to have failed to pay due attention as in this case (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da2083 delivered on May 27, 1975).

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)