A. The meaning of “when a deposit is made by mistake” under Article 8(2)2 of the Deposit Act and the standard for its determination

(b) Where the deposit for repayment for the repayment of the borrowed amount falls under “the time when it is made erroneously.”

A. The term "in case of deposit by mistake" under Article 8 (2) 2 of the Deposit Act refers to the case where the necessary effective requirements are not met as a deposit. Whether the deposit requirements are met shall be determined objectively on the basis of the facts of the cause of deposit stated in the deposit certificate.

B. The deposit for the repayment of the borrowed amount was made, but there was no obligation for the borrowed amount from the beginning, the deposit constitutes “the time when the borrowed amount was deposited by mistake” as it did not take effect as the repayment of the borrowed amount.

Article 8 (2) 2 of the Deposit Act

[Judgment of the court below] Defendant 1 and 1 other

Seoul Central District Court Order 93Ma4432 dated December 28, 1994

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the summary of the facts of this case is summarized as follows.

The non-appellant 1 was detained on the ground that the above park site was received 2 billion won as a promotion expense to change the form and quality from the non-appellant 2 (the head of the Dongjakdong workplace housing association) and the non-indicted 3 (one co-owner of the above park site 18-3, Dongjak-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government) of the case. On March 2, 1992, the Seoul District Criminal Court sentenced the above park site to 4 years of imprisonment for violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and was sentenced to conviction at the appellate court on July 3, 1992, and the defendant's case of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act was affirmed at the appellate court on October 13, 1992. However, the non-indicted 1 asserted that he was not guilty on the ground that the above money was not received as a solicitation item in the above criminal procedure, but was borrowed from the business fund.

However, on June 18, 192, prior to the judgment of the above appellate court, the re-appellant, who was a co-born of the above non-party 1, was deposited with the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, and the non-party 1 borrowed from one of the above non-party 2 and the non-party 3, and the non-party 1 borrowed from one of the above non-party 2 and one of the non-party 3, and the non-party 1 was not aware of the creditor's identity without any negligence, and the deposit of this case was made.

On September 1, 1993, the Re-Appellant filed a claim for recovery of the deposited goods under Article 8 (2) 1 and 2 of the Deposit Act on the ground that the deposited goods of the above case and the deposited goods of the above non-indicted 2 of the Seoul District Court confirmed that the deposited goods of this case were due to the mistake of the depositor and that the deposited goods of this case were the depositors, and that the deposited goods of this case were agreed to recover the deposited goods of this case, and that the deposited goods of this case constituted the deposited goods of this case as evidentiary materials of the Seoul District Court's protocol for conciliation for conciliation of invalidity of deposit 92ss and 75s, and that the deposited goods of the above non-indicted 3 of the above case constituted the deposited goods of this case, and the deposited goods of the Seoul District Court were not accepted on September 2, 1993.

Meanwhile, prior to the re-appellant's claim for the recovery of deposited goods, the head of the Korea Broadcasting System, the head of the Korea Housing Association Promotion Committee, and the head of the Dongjak District Housing Association Promotion Committee of the Korea Agricultural and Fishing Villages Promotion Corporation accepted the withdrawal of deposited goods in subrogation of the aforementioned non-party 2 as the creditor of the above non-party 2.

2. On the premise of the above facts, the court below held that it is difficult to view that there was no intention to use the deposit as favorable material for not guilty or reduction of punishment by failing to return the money received from outside the above case 2 or 3, or by failing to return the money received from outside the above case 1 or the outside the above case 2, etc. in the above criminal case. Furthermore, considering that the issue surrounding the return of money from outside the above case 1 and the outside the above case 2, etc. ( regardless of the fact that the deposit in the above case does not have the duty of return as illegal consideration or not having the duty of return as illegal consideration, it is difficult to view that there was no intention to use it as favorable material for the reduction of punishment or reduction of punishment, even though the cause of the deposit is the name of repayment of the loan, and even if the cause of the deposit is the name of repayment of the loan, it was found that the deposit in the above case was not guilty as a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and that the deposit in the above case was made for the immediately preceding appellate court's judgment.

3. However, the term "when a deposit is made by mistake" under Article 8 (2) 2 of the Deposit Act means that the deposit does not meet the necessary effective requirements. Whether the deposit requirements are met must be objectively determined on the basis of the fact that the deposit is the cause of the deposit stated in the deposit certificate. In the absence of the deposit for the repayment of the loan from the beginning, the deposit constitutes "when the loan is made by mistake" because it does not take effect as the repayment of the loan and it does not constitute "when the loan is made by mistake."

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the deposit of this case cannot be deemed to be due to mistake for the reasons stated in its reasoning is ultimately erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to "the time when the deposit of this case was made by mistake" under Article 8 (2) 2 of the Deposit Act. Furthermore, the court below determined that the claim for recovery of deposit against the non-party 2 was groundless under the judgment that the deposit of this case was not made by mistake. Furthermore, since the non-party 2's creditors notified the acceptance of deposit, the court below rejected the appeal of the re-appellant on the ground that the non-party 2's disposition of the public official who did not accept the claim for recovery of deposit of the re-appellant's deposit of this case was justified and thus, the court below's decision cannot be maintained. The reappeal's reappeal's reappeal's appeal is justified.

4. Therefore, without examining the remainder of the grounds for reappeal, we reverse the order of the court below and remand the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)