Where the act of withdrawing money in a deposit account that has gone through a real name verification procedure in his name constitutes an illegal act as an illegal act of embezzlement, and where the person holding the title-holder bears the burden of proving that the act of withdrawing money is illegal (=a person who asserts a tort)

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Kang Ji-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Chang-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na2010418 decided March 4, 2015

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

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

In the event that a deposit account holder withdraws money from a deposit account that has gone through a real name verification procedure in his/her name, he/she withdraws the money deposited by others with the intent to obtain the money entrusted by others, the act of embezzlement constitutes a tort, or the burden of proving that the act of withdrawing the money by the deposit account holder is illegal is a person who asserts a tort.

After finding the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s withdrawal amount was actually owned by Nonparty 3, since it was deposited in Nonparty 3 or succeeded to Nonparty 3 by Nonparty 3, and it was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s withdrawal amount was actually owned by Nonparty 3, as it was the money transferred to Nonparty 2’s account from Nonparty 2’s death to Nonparty 3, and was the money transferred to Nonparty 3’s account from Nonparty 2’s death.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on incomplete deliberation, omission of judgment, inheritance of deposit claims, burden of proof

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)