[1] In a case where there is an agreement between a deposit donor and a financial institution to vest a claim for the return of deposits in a person who is not a deposit titleholder (=the contributor)

[2] The case holding that a deposit holder is the depositor on the ground that an implied agreement was made between a deposit donor and a financial institution to vest a claim for the return of deposits in a person other than a deposit titleholder

[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 accordance with the trader’s real name. As such, in principle, the deposit account holder shall be deemed the deposit account holder, but if there is an explicit or implied agreement between the investor of the deposit and the financial institution to vest the claim for return of the deposit in the person who is not the deposit account holder due to special

[2] The case holding that there was an implied agreement between the deposit donor and the financial institution to vest the claim for return of deposits in a person who is not a deposit titleholder, and thus, the contributor is the deposit holder.

[1] Article 3 (1) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy, Article 702 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 3 (1) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy, Article

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da53359 delivered on November 13, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2855), Supreme Court Decision 99Da67031 delivered on March 10, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 948), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da17565 delivered on December 28, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 366), Supreme Court Decision 9Da68096 delivered on February 26, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 774)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Yong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Bank (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Yellow-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 2000Na8589 delivered on November 2, 2001

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

1. The lower court acknowledged the following facts.

A. On January 3, 1998, Nonparty 1 deposited KRW 136,365,430 at Defendant Yangyang Branch’s recommendation by Nonparty 2, and on January 3, 1998, the mother of the deposit owner’s name was Nonparty 3. However, Nonparty 2 used his seal. Nonparty 2 knowingly received a deposit from Nonparty 1 to attract a high amount of deposit with the knowledge of the fact that Nonparty 1 made a deposit with a borrowed account. A certificate of deposit was given to Nonparty 1.

B. Around March 31, 1998, Nonparty 3 reported the notice of deposit balance sent at the head office of the Defendant and became aware of the fact that Nonparty 1 made a deposit in his name. Nonparty 3 requested the Defendant to withdraw the deposit two times on May 4, 1998 and May 11, 198, but the Defendant rejected Nonparty 3’s request to withdraw the deposit on the ground that the actual deposit owner is Nonparty 1.

C. On May 28, 1998, the Plaintiff prepared an executory exemplification of a notarial deed with the purport that Nonparty 3 bears the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 150 million against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff repays it to May 29, 1998, and received from the Daegu District Court on June 8, 1998 a claim attachment and assignment order as to the claim for refund of KRW 162,44,957, out of the money deposited in the instant deposit account opened at the DefendantHayang branch under the name of Nonparty 3. The attachment and assignment order was served on the Defendant on June 10, 1998.

2. The judgment of the court below

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the deposit holder of the deposit account in this case is the non-party 3, and that there was no full claim claimed by the plaintiff, on the ground that the defendant was aware that the non-party 1 was opening the deposit account under the name of the non-party 3, and the non-party 1 and the defendant did not have any implied agreement between the non-party 1 and the defendant to vest in the claim for return of the deposit amount.

3. The judgment of this Court

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 accordance with the trader’s real name. As such, in principle, the deposit title holder shall be deemed the deposit owner, but in case where there is an express or implied agreement between the deposit contributor and the financial institution to vest the claim for return of deposit in the person who is not the deposit title holder, a financial transaction contract with the deposit owner is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da53359, Nov. 13, 1998; 99Da67031, Mar. 10, 200).

In the instant case, the head of Hyang Branch: (a) actively solicited Nonparty 1, who had a high-amount deposit account at his branch, to convert the existing deposit into the instant deposit account, a product with high interest rate; (b) he opened the instant deposit account with the knowledge of the fact that he opened the deposit account under the name of Nonparty 3; (c) issued the instant deposit certificate to Nonparty 1; and (d) used Nonparty 1’s seal; (c) upon receipt of the notice of deposit balance from the Defendant’s head office, Nonparty 3, who became aware of the deposit account in his name only; (d) refused to return the deposit account on the ground that the deposit owner was Nonparty 1; and (e) returned the full amount of principal and interest to Nonparty 1 after changing the deposit owner’s name from Nonparty 3 to Nonparty 1; and (e) the agreement between Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1, who was not Nonparty 1, to whom the instant deposit account was made, can be deemed to have reverted to Nonparty 1 as the Defendant’s deposit account.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the attribution of the deposit return claim or by violating the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)