1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the part of "judgment on deposit claim holders" from the last 5th to the 7th 2th eth eth son of the first eth eth eth eth eth son of the first eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth

2. Parts to be dried;

B. (1) In a case where the confirmation of the deposit account holder in the deposit account of this case (i) the joint deposit in the bank and the right to exercise the bank jointly, if the business partner deposits the account in the joint name, any claim is in a quasi-joint-ownership relation. However, in a case where the joint account holder deposits the money shared by each joint account holder for a specific purpose other than the partnership business, and the joint account holder opens the joint account for the purpose of preventing and monitoring the deposit from withdrawing the deposit by himself/herself before the purpose is achieved, a single deposit account claim can be divided in quantity, and it can be attributed to each joint account holder. However, if a joint return agreement exists between the bank and the joint account holder, all the joint account holders may bear the burden that all the joint account holders should jointly make a joint deposit agreement.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff and the construction of the joint name account of this case shall not be allowed to withdraw their deposits at will, and the Plaintiff shall also be allowed to do so in addition to the construction of the joint name account of this case for the purpose of securing effective preferential payment of the claim for proportional distribution against the construction of the two-uses, based on the above legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da55908, Oct. 14, 2004; 2005Da72430, Oct. 9, 2008).