Seosan Civil Litigation Attorney Defendant Assistance | Civil Litigation Attorney Defends Against a Payment of 250 Million Won by Having the Plaintiff's Claim for Return of a Deposit Dismissed

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.