The adequacy of measures taken by a bank against loan claims by treating the money deposited by means of account remittance as deposit claims in order to temporarily keep it from the customer of the deposit account account account account account account account in the savings account account account account district in which the bank bears loan obligations.

In a case where a deposit is carried out by account remittance, the deposit contract is naturally formed by the unilateral entry of the bank opening the current account without the necessity of an individual deposit contract pursuant to the provisions of the deposit contract, etc. between the bank opening the current account and the recipient, and the deposit is directly made by the recipient. On the other hand, when the account of the recipient is disposed of as the account of the recipient, the only deposit account holder is the recipient regardless of the reason of the deposit or the person who made the deposit. Thus, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, the amount deposited by the current account transfer method for temporary custody from the bank opening the current account account account account account holder to whom the bank bears the loan obligation against the current account holder is treated as the deposit account holder, even if the bank treats it as the deposit account holder and offsets it against the bank’s loan claims, it shall not be deemed as abuse

Articles 2, 492, and 702 of the Civil Act

Han Chang-gu

Gyeonggi Bank, Inc.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50,938,019 won with an annual interest rate of 50% from November 28, 1992 to the day of this sentencing, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are acknowledged when Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, Gap evidence 3-1 to 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1, 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 3, 4, 6-1 to 5-3, Eul evidence 5-1 to 5-3, and the whole purport of the pleadings in each testimony of Kim Jong-ri, and there is no counter-proof.

(1) On January 24, 1991, the Plaintiff, as a certified judicial scrivener, entered into a savings deposit agreement with the Defendant bank's original branch, and opened a savings deposit account account account (hereinafter the Plaintiff's account account) under 042-37-843721. The Plaintiff was entrusted with the affairs of transferring the factory site he purchased from the Nonparty's unification, abuse of assistance, and old-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho (hereinafter the Nonparty) who operated the factory in Section 2 of the Incheon Southern-dong Corporation with the affairs of transferring the factory site in his name. The Nonparty was entrusted with the affairs of transferring the factory site he purchased from the third party's account by means of the third party's account remittance. The above regular unification was 5,875,80 won on November 17, 1992; 27,937,700 won on the same day; 30 won on the same day, around 18, 1989, respectively.

(2) Meanwhile, the Defendant, under the Plaintiff’s joint and several sureties, filed a lawsuit claiming loan payment against Nonparty 2 and the Plaintiff, as stipulated in the Financial Group Agreement, and received a favorable judgment of 175,00,000 won in total from April 7, 1980 to December 11 of the same year, 1981, except for a partial repayment of KRW 16,249,147 as of October 28, 1981, and interest 24,45,284 won in total, and interest 24,45,284 won in total from October 29, 1981 to 47, and the Defendant sought loan payment of KRW 30,57,250 won in total, KRW 240,97, KRW 250, KRW 1925, KRW 245, KRW 1982, KRW 2509, KRW 196, KRW 257, KRW 1982.

(3) The Defendant: (a) considered KRW 52,726,38,019 out of the above loan claims against the Plaintiff as an automatic claim; and (b) considered KRW 52,726,38,00 as the Plaintiff’s deposit claim; and (c) took the disposition of suspending payment on November 18, 1992, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the payment would be rescinded if the payment exceeds the due date; (b) notified the Plaintiff that the payment would be offset if the payment exceeds the due date; and (c) the Defendant did not pay the obligation in accordance with the above notification, as scheduled on the 27th of the same month.

2. Issues and judgments

(a) A deposit contract with the plaintiff;

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's actual deposit of the above money is not the plaintiff's personal acquisition of the money deposited in the plaintiff's old account, but merely it was kept for the payment of registration tax, education tax, and purchase of bonds from the non-party, and thus the defendant's expression of offset intention does not take effect.

In general, the account transfer, i.e., account transfer (the account holder) or a third party may be conducted by means of remittance to the account principal account, and in this case, three pages can be examined. The contract is established between the account holder and another bank (in the case of the account holder, a business store other than the account establishment store, and a third party including the account establishment store). The contract is established between the account holder and another bank to pay the fee, etc. and to entrust the account holder to the account principal by transferring the money to the account principal account of the account opening bank. Second, between the bank and the account opening bank (in the case of a third party directly deposits from the account opening bank, this process will be omitted) between the account opening bank and the account opening bank. The contract is established to entrust the deposit between the account opening bank and the account opening bank, and the account opening bank and the account deposit account opening bank should be established directly between the account holder and the account opening bank and the account opening bank.

However, according to the above evidence No. 5-1 to No. 3, according to the basic terms and conditions of savings transaction applicable to savings transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant bank, the deposit may be made by means of cash or securities (Article 4 (2) of the basic terms and conditions of savings transaction). The time when deposit is made by the customer or the third party (Article 5 (1) 3 of the same terms and conditions of deposit). The time when deposit is made by the defendant bank's bank's account transfer with securities is confirmed as the date when the bank returned such securities to the director of the bank, and the date when the bank's account transfer was confirmed as the date when it returned the securities to the director of the bank, but the securities to be paid by the director of the bank was confirmed as the date when it was made within the same date (Article 5 (1) 4 and 2 of the above terms and conditions of deposit). However, if the securities are cashier's checks, in principle, the plaintiff's deposit account transfer was not made by the defendant 1 to the director of the bank.

B. Whether to abuse the right of set-off

Although the Plaintiff explained that each of the above amounts deposited in the Plaintiff’s account is not the Plaintiff’s personal acquisition, and the Plaintiff’s payment was transferred to the Defendant for registration expenses, etc. by a third party, not his own money, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s disposal of the Plaintiff’s above amount of payment by offsetting the Plaintiff’s claim for payment by offsetting the Plaintiff’s obligation with the Plaintiff’s own trust trust and trust by being aware of the circumstances, is not permissible as an abuse of rights against the principle of trust and good faith of bank transactions. However, even if the deposit is made by a third party’s account transfer, it is not reasonable to regard the Plaintiff as the sole deposit account holder regardless of the details of the deposit or the person who made the deposit, and in fact, the Defendant bank as the Defendant bank cannot treat the Plaintiff’s daily nature of the money deposited in its own account. Therefore, the offset disposition of this case is justifiable, and there is no reason for the Plaintiff’s claim for damages on the premise that it constitutes abuse of rights.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed because it appears to be any conspiracy or there is no reason.

Judges Kim Tae-hun (Presiding Judge)