(a) Whether the authenticity of the content of a seal coupon affixed by a post office is presumed to be made in the outer part;

(b) A case recognizing the validity of repayment to a person who has no right to receive repayment, deeming that an obligee has gained a benefit;

A. In the outer part, the name of the post office is stamped, and the content portion is stamped by the private person, which is different from a notarized document, and the authenticity is not presumed to have been established even if there is no dispute as to the establishment of the portion of the document, which is a private document, even though it is different from that of a notarized document.

(b) The case recognizing the effect of deposit payments in the so-called "one sole shareholder" on the ground that, in the event that an employee of the company withdraws deposits from the passbook in the name of a sole shareholder without authority and uses them for the company, such a single shareholder would have received profits as much as the company's profits have accrued, while using them as operating funds of the company without distinguishing deposits in the name of an individual and deposits in the name of the company.

A. Articles 327 and 328 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 74Da234 delivered on September 24, 1974 (Gong1974, 8069) (Gong1974, 8069) 88Meu5836 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1453)

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na18081 delivered on November 29, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records of this case, the court below is just in holding that the non-party 1 has the right to represent the withdrawal of the company's monetary trust deposit of this case or that the non-party 1 cannot be regarded as the quasi-Possessor of the above deposit claim, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

The plaintiff himself is not a merchant, and the above non-party 1 is merely an employee of the Aki S S C in the General Construction Office of the non-party corporation, the representative director of which is the plaintiff, and the above non-party 1 cannot become a commercial employee of the plaintiff. The arguments are without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, even if the defendant believed that the above non-party 1 had the right to representation of the above trust deposit money, or the non-party 1 was an occupant of the above trust deposit money, as seen above, the above non-party 1 affixed his seal impression different from the reporter's written request for money trust without holding the above company's money trust certificate at the time of the above request for money trust deposit, and such upper portion of the stamp image can not be found as a matter of common sense if it was difficult for the employee in charge of the above affairs to use the reasonable care expected in light of social norms. According to the evidence, the defendant bank did not deal with the payment of the deposit by the fixed method, and it cannot be handled by any abnormal method such as unmanned, etc.

3. On the third ground for appeal

The evidence No. 4-2 is the outer part of the sealed cover of the post office, and the evidence No. 4-1 of the evidence No. 4 is the part of the sealed cover, which is the document written in the name of the plaintiff. The above document is different from the attached cover of the document No. 4-2, and even if there is no dispute as to the establishment of the document No. 4-2 of the above document, it is not presumed that the document No. 4-1 of the private document No. 4 was authentic (see Supreme Court Decision 88Da5836, Sept. 12, 1989). The court below's decision that the court below's determination that the authenticity of the evidence No. 4-1 of the evidence No. 4 cannot be admitted as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the evidence No. 4-1, and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

4. On the fifth ground for appeal

The decision of the court below is justified in finding that the monetary trust claim as stated in the judgment based on the evidences was made with the seal impression different from the reporter's seal impression of the trust deposit of this case and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit

Since the defendant did not assert that the payment of the deposit in this case was effective against the plaintiff on the ground of the theory clause up to the judgment below, the ground that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the terms and conditions in the judgment below cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. The ground for appeal is

5. On the fourth ground for appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the non-party 1 operated the two accounts with no distinction between the bank account under the name of the individual and the bank account under the name of the company, and 100,000 won deposited in the bank account under the name of the non-party 1 on December 31, 1992, and the plaintiff received the same amount of 10,000,000 won deposited in the bank account under the name of the non-party 1 as of the same day, and therefore, the above payment of 10,000,000 won deposited in the non-party 1's own account under the name of the non-party 1 as of December 31, 1992 and the above 00,000 won deposited in the non-party 1's trust account under the name of the non-party 1 as well as the above 00,000 won deposited in the non-party 1's own account under the name of the non-party 1's own account.

B. However, according to the records of this case as to whether the non-party company is the plaintiff's only company, three savings accounts are opened more than the trust deposit in the name of the plaintiff in the branch of the defendant bank benefiting from the defendant bank. The plaintiff not only deposited in the name of the non-party company but also deposited in the name of the non-party company to the non-party 1 or the non-party 2, who is an employee of the non-party company. In filing a complaint against the non-party 1 for the crime of occupational embezzlement in the name of the non-party company, the withdrawal of the trust deposit of this case was also included in the facts of complaint, and the investigation agency also recognized that the non-party company's employee made a statement on behalf of the plaintiff, and in light of the above facts, it appears that the funds that the non-party company withdrawn from the deposit in the name of the plaintiff was used for the non-party company. Accordingly, it is doubtful whether

Therefore, the court below should have judged whether the non-party company's personal deposit in the name of the non-party company was operated without distinguishing the deposit account in the name of the non-party company from the deposit account in the name of the non-party company, and whether the non-party company was operated without distinguishing the deposit account in the name of the non-party company from the non-party company in the name of the non-party company. However, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the above. Thus, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and by violating the rules of evidence.

C. Next, according to the Plaintiff’s above 10-1 to 18 (the above 10-7 of the Plaintiff’s 10-2)’s account deposit account in the name of Nonparty 1, the above 10-1’s account was deposited in the above general account in the name of Nonparty 1’s account, and then the Plaintiff’s deposit in the name of Nonparty 1’s account was deposited in the above 0-1’s account. Of the above 47,39,843 out of the above 0-2’s account was deposited in the non-party 1’s account to the 0-1’s account, the Plaintiff’s account was deposited in the non-party 40-2’s account to the non-party 10-2’s account, and the Plaintiff’s account was deposited in the non-party 4’s account to the non-party 1’s account to the non-party 1’s account. However, the above 0-1,000 won was deposited in the non-party 1’s account.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)