[1] Deposit holders of registered deposits

[2] Where a declaration of provisional execution becomes invalidated after provisional execution on the deposit, whether a deposit holder, who is not the actual deposit holder, may seek the return of the provisional payment or the claim for damages (negative)

[1] In the case of a registered deposit in a financial institution, it is reasonable to view a person who actually controls a deposit regardless of the name in the name of the bank, and regardless of whom the financial institution believed to be a deposit owner, as the deposit owner, as the deposit owner himself/herself or through a private person or his/her agent with intent to make his/her own deposit by his/her own contribution.

[2] Even though the deposit titleholder received part of the deposit under the judgment of the provisional execution sentence against the deposit titleholder, if the deposit belongs collectively to the fishing village fraternity which is not the deposit titleholder's property, it is merely a provisional execution against the other's property. Thus, the deposit titleholder cannot claim the return of the deposit or claim the compensation for damages on the ground that the payment due to the provisional execution constitutes the payment due to the declaration of provisional execution under Article 201 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

[1] Articles 105 and 702 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 201 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da14987 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 2223), Supreme Court Decision 94Da59042 delivered on August 22, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3239), Supreme Court Decision 95Da5986 delivered on April 23, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1575)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Yoon-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and five others

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Na7951 delivered on October 28, 1994

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal (the grounds of appeal on the supplemental appellate brief filed after the lapse of the period for supplemental appellate brief are limited to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

A. As to the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's determination that the fishery right of this case and compensation for the extinguishment of the fishery right of this case were collectively reverted to the non-party prospective fishing village fraternity, not to be reverted to the plaintiffs, is justified, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below.

In addition, according to the records, it is clear that the above estimated fishing village fraternity is a non-corporate entity established by the estimated fishermen to obtain a fishery license. Therefore, the theory of lawsuit based on the premise that the above scheduled fishing village fraternity falls under the fishing village fraternity as provided by the Fisheries Cooperatives Act is not acceptable. There is no reason to discuss it.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In the case of a registered deposit in a financial institution, it is reasonable to see that a person who actually controls a deposit without asking for any name or regardless of whom the financial institution believed to be a deposit owner, and who has made a deposit contract by himself or through his agent with intent to make a deposit in his own account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu946, Oct. 28, 1987; 94Da59042, Aug. 22, 1995).

In light of the relevant evidence and records and the above legal principles, the deposit of this case is jointly owned by the above estimated fishing village fraternity regardless of the name, and therefore, even if Defendant 1 received part of the deposit of this case under the judgment of the provisional execution sentence with respect to the plaintiffs, it is merely a provisional execution against the above estimated fishing village fraternity other than the plaintiffs' property, that is, the above estimated fishing village fraternity that received part of the deposit of this case, which is merely a provisional execution against the other party's property. Thus, it cannot be claimed that the payment due to the provisional execution of this case constitutes a payment due to the declaration of provisional execution under Article 201 (2) of the Civil Procedure

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and the judgment below does not contain any error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)