상세검색
최근 검색어 전체 삭제
다국어입력
즐겨찾기0
158036.jpg
KCI우수등재 학술저널

금융실명제 하에서 예금채권의 지급과 부당이득

대법원 2012. 2. 23. 선고 2011다86720 판결

  • 19

This sometimes happens in registered deposits, contributor, depositor (person to make a deposit contract), and registered person for deposit are different each other. This sometimes happened even after the real-name financial system began to be applied on August 12, 1993 which aimed to financial transaction with real name. As to deposit in other’s name where contributor and registered person for deposit etc. are different each other, there was some discussion around issue to settle on the account holder(the party to a deposit contract) and detailed legal issues based on this. And attitude of precedent also had changed. This paper intends to examine the decision of the Korean Supreme Court delivered on February 23, 2012. This decision shows if registered person for deposit can have the right of claiming restitution of unjust enrichment against contributor etc., in case a financial organization pays deposit to contributor(or heir of contributor) under the real-name financial system. But the decision lacks explanation about substantial legal grounds for such conclusion regardless of right or wrong of the conclusion so that it requires explanation. Accordingly, this study suggests through investigation and analysis in this regards as follows. 1. Settlement on the account holder should be based on the interpretation of a deposit contract under the real-name financial system. And the internal legal relation between contributor and registered person is not directly considered for judgement. The internal legal relation has a meaning only when it is included to an agreement made between financial organization and the person to make a deposit contract. And this should be only available as data with which it is judged if an agreement between financial organization and the person to make a deposit contract is clearly made. Accordingly, it can be assessed that account holder is basically registered person under the real-name financial system, account holder in the 2012 case is also registered person, and related decision is also based on this. 2. In this case, a financial organization paid sale price of beneficiary certificate to the defendant who is one of co-inheritors of contributor, not account holder. This is evaluated as effective payment to quasi-possessor of credit(art. 470 of the Korean Civil Code) 3. Content of legal relation of deposit in other’s name would be decided through analogy with legal principles of nominal trust of contract. Negation of the duty of restitution of unjust enrichment in the related decision would be based on art. 472 of the Korean Civil Code, regulations of commitment, and concept of fairness.

[대상판결]

Ⅰ. 사실관계

Ⅱ. 소송의 경과

Ⅲ. 대상판결의 판단

Ⅳ. 환송심 판결

[연 구]

Ⅰ. 서

Ⅱ. 차명예금에서의 예금주의 결정

Ⅲ. 예금채권의 출연자에의 지급과 금융기관의 책임

Ⅳ. 예금명의자와 출연자의 관계 및 부당이득

Ⅴ. 결

<참고문헌>

로딩중