(a) Effect on deposit holders when making a deposit payment to a person who has no authority to withdraw deposits by negligence of the staff in charge of banks;

(b) Purport of the special agreement for exemption that the bank has effect on the issuance of a deposit to a person who has taken over a passbook after comparing his seal impression between the bank and the depositor; and

1. If a bank pays a deposit to a person who has no authority to withdraw deposits by negligence of the staff in charge of the bank, the payment shall not take effect on the depositor;

2. The purport of the special agreement on debentures is that if the bank provides a deposit to a person who has participated in the passbook after comparing the seal impression of the bank between the bank and the depositor, the payment shall not be deemed valid until the bank paid it to an unauthorized person without knowledge of the fact that if the bank had paid a deposit to the person who has held the passbook due to his intention or negligence and without knowledge of the fact that it would have been ordinarily required for the banking operations.

Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Attorney Yang Jae-yang, et al., Counsel for the defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 74Na173 delivered on November 7, 1974

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff, and the costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s Attorney

According to the court below's reasoning, since the non-party 2 did not suffer losses from the above non-party 1's deposit account at the time of set-off against the non-party 2,96,716, and the defendant's deposit account was issued to the non-party 1's non-party 2 and the non-party 2's bank's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant’s Attorney

As seen earlier, the court below held that in withdrawing the deposit amount of KRW 2,00,000, the bank's name was different from the bank's name in the written request for deposit which was submitted by the bearer, and there were doubtful circumstances as seen earlier, and thus, the employee in charge of the defendant bank could have known that the above employee in charge of the defendant bank could have been the person who did not have the right to withdrawal from the deposit if he did not have the right to withdrawal from the deposit. However, even though the employee in charge of the defendant bank neglected to do so and paid KRW 2,00,000 to the same person by mistake as the person in charge of the defendant bank's staff in charge of the defendant bank's negligence, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the negligence of the bank in withdrawing the deposit payment, and the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the special agreement and it cannot be interpreted that the special agreement cannot be viewed as valid unless the defendant bank's seal was paid to the person who did not have the right to withdrawal from the deposit.

Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed as it is without merit. The 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 Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)