[1] In a case where a remitter requests a receiving bank to return a remittance on the ground of an erroneous remittance and an addressee accepts the return to the receiving bank by recognizing an erroneous remittance, whether offsetting against a deposit claim equivalent to the amount erroneously transmitted to the payee’s account by using his/her claim against the payee as an automatic claim constitutes a violation of the good faith principle or an abuse of offset right in relation to the remitter’s relationship (affirmative in principle)

[2] Whether a deposit claim to be deposited in the debtor's account after the provisional seizure order is subject to provisional seizure (affirmative with qualification)

[3] In a case where Gap corporation requested Byung bank to return the remittance amount to Byung bank on the ground of erroneous remittance of Eul's account in the name of Eul corporation, and Eul company also accepted Byung bank's return, Byung bank offsets Eul bank's loan claims against Eul as automatic claim, and Eul had already been issued a seizure and collection order, etc. by Eul company's other creditors prior to error remittance, and the purport of "the indication of seizure claim" was stated in "the indication of seizure claim", the case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, etc. against the rejection of offset defense

[1] Articles 2, 492, and 702 of the Civil Act; Articles 225 and 227 of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Article 276 of the Civil Execution Act / [3] Articles 2, 492, and 702 of the Civil Act; Articles 225, 227, 229(1), and 231 of the Civil Execution Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da66088 Decided May 27, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1219) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2008Da9952 Decided February 10, 201 (Gong2011Sang, 551)

2. The term “public interest” means the public interest and the public interest and the public interest and the public interest and the public interest and the public interest and the public interest and private interest

National Bank of Korea (Law Firm Democratic, Attorneys Yoon Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Na2957 Decided July 13, 2012

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

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

1. In a case where a remitter requests a creditor bank to return the amount of money directly transferred through the bank or through the bank for the reason that it is an erroneous remittance, and the payee acknowledges that the money was deposited in the account of the remitter and consented to the return thereof to the received bank, offsetting the money deposited in the account of the payee by mistake in the account of the payee’s deposit claims, barring special circumstances such as the lending of the payee’s deposit claims as security of the deposit claims under the good faith of the receiving bank, or the acquisition of the automatic claim by mistake in the account of the recipient’s deposit claims, barring special circumstances such as the seizure of the deposit claims by a third party, the operator of the fund transfer system of public nature takes profits from recovery of claims that the remitter, who was the user of the fund transfer system, did not have originally anticipated under his/her sacrifice, and there is no value to legally protect the remitter from the purpose or function of the set-off system and thus, it is contrary to the good faith principle or abuse the right of set-off (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da6888, May 27, 2010).

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff’s act of remitting the amount of credit that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to NIB to the instant account under the name of Korea Venture Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Venture”); and (b) requested the Defendant to return the amount of remittance on the ground that it was an erroneous remittance; and (c) it recognized that the money was deposited in the instant account by the Plaintiff’s mistake remittance and consented to the return thereof to the Defendant; and (d) barring any special circumstance, the Defendant’s offset of the amount of credit against the Defendant’s deposit claim for the loans to NIB as the automatic claim against the instant account by using the amount of deposit claim equivalent to the amount that was erroneously transferred to the instant account by Korea.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and the misapprehension of legal principles as to wrongful remittance, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that before the plaintiff's error remittance transfer transfer, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service attached the claim amount of 12,581,590 won against the defendant and notified the defendant of the seizure and collection of the claim amount of 12,581,590 won under the National Tax Collection Act. The non-party received the seizure and collection order with the claim amount of 10,207,238 won and the order was served on the defendant, and the National Health Insurance Corporation seized the claim amount of 25,780,940 won and notified the defendant of the seizure of the claim pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act. The court below determined that the above seizure and collection order or seizure order issued by the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, etc. was established at the time of delivery to the defendant, and it was possible for the plaintiff to have transferred the claim amount to the account of this case at the time of "Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service to the defendant," and it cannot be viewed that there was an error or remittance of the plaintiff's deposit claim of this case.

However, we cannot accept the above decision of the court below for the following reasons.

A deposit claim to be deposited in the debtor's account after the issuance of a provisional seizure order may be subject to provisional seizure in cases where a deposit account is opened to the extent that it is possible to specify the right at present and that deposit claims are expected to occur in the near future (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da9952, Feb. 10, 201).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, Korea Venture opened the instant account on December 29, 2004 and conducted financial transactions, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service (Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service), the Nonparty on December 21, 2007, the Nonparty on April 16, 2009, and the National Health Insurance Corporation (Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service) on July 3, 2009, seized each of the deposit claims against the Defendant of Koreacom, and served the Defendant with a seizure, collection, and seizure order. The Plaintiff's error remittance was made thereafter, and the Plaintiff's mistake remittance was included in the above seizure, collection order, and seizure order of Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, etc., and the future deposit claims against the Defendant on Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, etc., and the account of this case was freely deposited and deposited at any time until the Plaintiff's mistake, remittance, and set-off by the Defendant was still traded through the instant account.

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, insofar as the deposit transaction contract between Korea and the Defendant was concluded and the account of this case was opened, it is possible to specify the right to deposit claims to be deposited in the account of this case, and since the account of this case is opened at any time as possible to deposit and the account of this case can be seen as an account that can be expected to occur in the near future, and thus, future deposit claims to be deposited in the account of this case fall under the objects of seizure such as Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the deposit claims due to the Plaintiff’s error remittance are subject to seizure, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the above seizure collection order and seizure order are effective for Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, etc., and if such circumstance exists, it is valid to offset the Defendant’s loan claims against the deposit claims against Korea’s seacom with the automatic

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion as to the defense of offset on the ground that the effect of the above seizure, collection order or seizure order by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, etc. does not extend to the plaintiff's deposit claims due to the error remittance. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the effect of the seizure and the abuse of offset rights

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)