In case where a person having experience in banking transactions takes over a deposit claim, whether there is gross negligence on the part of the person who knew or was unaware of the special agreement on restriction on transfer (affirmative)

The legal relationship on deposit claims, which are claims arising from bank transactions, is governed by the general terms and conditions of transaction, and the bank regulates various kinds of deposit claims under the basic terms and conditions of deposit transactions, which are general terms and conditions of transaction, to restrict their transfer. Thus, the fact that the transfer of deposit claims is restricted is at least widely known to a person who has experience in bank transactions. Therefore, if a person who has experience in bank transactions takes over deposit claims, he/she shall be deemed to have known that there was a special agreement on restriction on transfer of deposit claims, barring special circumstances, and even if not, it shall

Article 449 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Ho-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na11986 delivered on July 11, 2003

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

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the claim for time deposit in this case can be transferred only when the first bank consented to the transfer, and that restriction on transfer was also known to the plaintiff, but since the first bank did not consent to the assignment of the above claim against the plaintiff, the assignment of claim between the plaintiff and the defendant joining the defendant is null and void, the claim cannot be transferred if the parties express their opposing intent, but the third party's declaration of opposing intent should be known or was grossly negligent in not knowing the existence of opposing intent. Thus, according to Article 12 (1) of the Deposit Transaction Clause which was incorporated into the contract between the defendant joining the defendant and the first bank at the time of the conclusion of the term deposit contract between the defendant joining the defendant and the first bank, "the transaction office must notify the bank in advance to transfer the deposit or establish a pledge, and the first bank notified the defendant that the assignment of claim cannot be accepted, but it cannot be seen that the plaintiff could have known as a matter of course as to the contents of the above terms and conditions.

2. However, the legal relationship of the deposit claim, which is a claim arising from the bank transaction, is governed by the general transaction terms and conditions, and the bank has a provision restricting the transfer of all kinds of deposit claims under the general transaction terms and conditions, which is the general transaction terms and conditions, and thus, the fact that the transfer of the deposit claim is restricted is at least known matters for a person who has experience in the bank transaction. Therefore, if a person who has experience in the bank transaction takes over the deposit claim, he/she shall be deemed to have known that there was a special agreement on restriction on transfer of the deposit claim, and even if not, it shall

According to the records, the plaintiff has operated a bond business with an office in the name of Dongdong for several years prior to the transfer of the term deposit claim in this case. At the time of the transfer of the term deposit claim in this case, the plaintiff operated the company as the representative director of the time of the transfer of the term deposit claim in this case, which can be deemed to have experienced in banking transactions. The plaintiff, before acquiring the term deposit claim in this case, has set up a pledge to the defendant as to the term deposit claim of KRW 100 million deposited in the new bank in the name of the non-party, who is the plaintiff's employee, in order to secure part of the amount of the amount of the term deposit claim to be borne by the defendant under the guarantee insurance contract with the defendant. The amount of the term deposit claim in this case can be deemed to be the maximum amount as KRW 30 million. In light of these facts, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff who acquired the term deposit claim in this case, was aware of the existence of a special agreement on the transfer restriction, or

Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the argument by the defendant and the defendant's intervenor on the ground that there is no evidence that the plaintiff knew that the transfer of the time deposit claim of this case was restricted, constitutes an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the restriction on transfer of deposit claims or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the restriction on transfer of deposit claims.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)