The judgment below

The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The lower court determined that, upon the Plaintiff’s request for deposit payment, the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff deposits and interest equivalent to the instant share price, since C transferred KRW 780,532,152 (hereinafter “instant share price”) from the securities subscription deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s separate deposit account”) to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff (M; hereinafter “first account”); from that time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant constituted a deposit contract equivalent to the instant share price, the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the deposit and interest equivalent thereto. However, the Defendant’s withdrawal from the first account in the Plaintiff’s name to C (N; hereinafter “second account”) transferred KRW 788,00,000 from the Plaintiff’s deposit account to the Plaintiff’s bank account (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the share price”). As to the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s lawful deposit payment under the Plaintiff’s delegation, the Plaintiff consented to the withdrawal of the instant share price on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The Plaintiff rejected this decision by deeming that it was difficult to deem that the Plaintiff delegated a legitimate authority to withdraw the share price of this case to the Defendant.

B. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

1) 원심판결 이유 및 원심이 적법하게 채택한 증거들에 의하면 다음과 같은 사실을 알 수 있다. 가) 원고는 2010. 7. 11. C과, 원고가 독일계 헤지펀드인 피터벡앤파트너로부터 피터벡앤파트너의 원고에 대한 신주인수권을 인수하는 데 필요한 자금을 C이 투자하고, 원고가 신주인수권을 C이 지정한 투자자들에게 배정하면, C이 그에 따른 주금을 납부하기로 하는 내용의 약정(이하 ‘이 사건 투자약정‘이라고 한다)을...