CONTENTS
- 1. Seosan Civil Litigation Attorney | What Was the Reason for Requesting a Consultation?
- - Seosan Civil Litigation Attorney | The Content of the Consultation
- - Seosan Civil Litigation Attorney | Supreme Court Precedent Related to the Case
- - Seosan Civil Litigation Attorney | Statutes Related to the Case
- 2. Seosan Civil Litigation Attorney | The Plan of Assistance
- - Assistance 1: Reliance on the Former Chairman's Authority
- - Assistance 2: The Plaintiff's Absence of Fact-Checking and Auditing
- 3. Seosan Civil Litigation Attorney | The Defendant's Loss at the First Instance Is Reversed and the Plaintiff's Claim Is Dismissed
1. Seosan Civil Litigation Attorney | What Was the Reason for Requesting a Consultation?
The client who came to the Seosan civil litigation attorney was an agricultural cooperative financial company.
The client had paid out a deposit at the request of the former chairman of the plaintiff, an unincorporated association, and was then sued for the return of the deposit. The first instance court accepted that claim, placing the client at risk of having to pay a large sum of money.
The client came to the Seosan branch office, maintaining that the situation was unfair and expressing the wish to appeal, and the civil litigation attorney accordingly decided to examine the client's case closely.
Seosan Civil Litigation Attorney | The Content of the Consultation
The client emphasized that the filing of the lawsuit by the plaintiff, an unincorporated association, was unjustified.
The client's position was that it had not been negligent in the procedure for paying out the deposit.
The client confirmed that the account was the plaintiff's, and paid out the money only after reliably verifying that the person who requested the deposit was the representative of the plaintiff.
However, in the meantime, the plaintiff had held an extraordinary general meeting and elected a new chairman.
In other words, because the client had paid out the deposit to the plaintiff's former chairman, the client was placed at risk of having to pay the plaintiff a sum amounting to hundreds of millions of won.
However, the client felt that it was unfair to suffer harm because of the plaintiff's complicated circumstances.
The client wished to correct this by pursuing an appeal, and after consulting with the firm's Seosan civil attorney, entrusted the appellate proceedings to the firm.
Seosan Civil Litigation Attorney | Supreme Court Precedent Related to the Case
Let us examine, together with the Seosan civil attorney, the Supreme Court precedent related to this case.
Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da56037 and 2006Da23695
According to Supreme Court precedent, where, despite the expiration of the term or the resignation of a chairman who is the representative of an unincorporated association, no successor has been appointed, or where, even if a successor was appointed, the appointment resolution is void, the former chairman may continue to perform the previous duties until a successor is appointed, unless there are special circumstances warranting a finding that it is inappropriate for the former chairman to perform the duties.
Seosan Civil Litigation Attorney | Statutes Related to the Case
Following the Supreme Court precedent, let us now review the statutes related to this case.
Civil Act, Article 470 (Performance to a Quasi-Possessor of a Claim) Performance rendered to a quasi-possessor of a claim is effective only where the person rendering performance acted in good faith and without negligence.
Under the above statute, the Seosan civil attorney established a strategy of emphasizing that the client withdrew and paid out the deposit in the belief that the former chairman, who presented the identification document with the case reference number, was the representative of the plaintiff.
2. Seosan Civil Litigation Attorney | The Plan of Assistance
The Seosan civil litigation attorney who took on this case formed, through detailed consultation with the client, a team composed of multiple experts with extensive experience in deposit return cases.
The civil litigation attorney task force strongly argued that "the defendant withdrew the deposit after the depositor was confirmed to be the representative of the plaintiff, and therefore has no obligation to return the amount withdrawn from the account."
The main points of the plan of assistance are as follows.
Assistance 1: Reliance on the Former Chairman's Authority
It was confirmed that the Seosan civil litigation attorney's client withdrew the deposit in the belief that the former chairman, who presented the identification document with the case reference number, was the representative of the plaintiff.
From the client's perspective, the former chairman was a person with the appearance of having legitimate authority to exercise the deposit claim on the account in this case, and therefore qualified as a quasi-possessor of the claim.
There is also a Supreme Court decision holding that performance rendered to a quasi-possessor of a claim has the effect of extinguishing the claim where the person rendering performance acted in good faith and without negligence, so that the debtor is released from the obligation.
Assistance 2: The Plaintiff's Absence of Fact-Checking and Auditing
The plaintiff was able to learn of the act of the former chairman in receiving the deposit on the account in this case.
Because the former chairman's receipt of the deposit had the effect of performance in relation to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's deposit claim against the defendant can be regarded as extinguished.
In addition, after the balance of the account in this case was transferred to the former chairman's account, the former chairman used that amount for the benefit of the unincorporated association, which was the plaintiff.
The plaintiff did not conduct an audit regarding the transfer of the deposit on that account to the former chairman's deposit account.
Because the plaintiff also never raised any objection against the client regarding this case afterward, the attorney argued that the plaintiff's claim was without merit and should be dismissed.
3. Seosan Civil Litigation Attorney | The Defendant's Loss at the First Instance Is Reversed and the Plaintiff's Claim Is Dismissed
The court accepted the Seosan civil litigation attorney's argument and rendered a judgment that "the part of the first instance judgment in which the defendant lost shall be reversed, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that reversed part shall be dismissed."
In addition, the court ordered that the plaintiff bear all of the litigation costs as well.
The client, who had been at risk of having to return 250 million won without cause, expressed gratitude, and afterward entered into an ongoing legal advisory contract with the firm.
The firm 🔗operates a General Litigation and Arbitration Group and responds promptly to various civil disputes, such as the return of a deposit.
Because civil cases can take a long time to resolve, it can be helpful to obtain the assistance of a civil litigation attorney to whom the case can be entrusted with confidence.
In addition to legal experts such as attorneys and law-adjacent professionals such as accountants and tax advisors, the firm forms teams that also include evidence examination personnel skilled in the collection and analysis of evidence, digital forensics specialists, and security specialists for the protection of clients, working together to provide assistance.
Those who need an optimal legal solution suited to their situation may seek a legal consultation at any time.
This content is based on actual case studies of Daeryun Law LLC with some adaptations, and the copyright belongs to our firm.
Unauthorized reproduction, duplication, or distribution and other copyright infringements may result in legal action under applicable laws.
