(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.25 2015가단5069061

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.25 2015가단5069061

예금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2009, the Plaintiff’s mother B (hereinafter “the deceased”) sought a deposit in the Plaintiff’s name due to tax issues, such as transfer income tax, etc. on November 18, 2009, to use the funds sold by the deceased’s housing as future lease deposit and living expenses, etc., and C, accompanied by a family relation certificate to verify the relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased, opened a regular deposit account (Account Number D; hereinafter “instant account”) in the name of the Plaintiff, and deposited such circumstance into the instant account with 50,000,000 won from the deceased registered on the Defendant Bank’s computer network.

(hereinafter “the instant deposit contract”). B.

On March 25, 2010, the Deceased visited the branch of Defendant Bank Samyang-dong to present the passbook, seal, and password of the instant account, and demanded the cancellation of the instant deposit contract. C, at the request of the Deceased, issued a check and delivered the checks to the Deceased, and deposited the remaining KRW 30,147,192 out of the total amount of KRW 50,147,192, among the principal and interest of KRW 50,147,192, at the time of the Deceased’s termination of the said contract.

C. The Deceased died on August 10, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the basic terms and conditions of deposit transactions included in the deposit contract in this case and the criteria for the management of banking business, the Plaintiff terminated the agreement on the deposit contract in this case with the deceased, who is not the nominal owner, in violation of this provision, even though it is not possible to terminate the term deposit at the request of the nominal owner of the deposit. The termination is null and void, and the Plaintiff is seeking payment by the lawsuit in this case, asserting that the Defendant had the claim

The facts described in the above paragraph 1 above are stated in No. 3 and No. 4, and arguments.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.16 2016가단5147739

-서울북부지방법원 2016.02.17 2015가합18

-수원지방법원 2018.08.07 2017가합19947

-서울고등법원 2016.04.06 2015나26346

-부산지방법원 2015.02.05 2013가단105720