별단예금과 상계에 관한 한국법의 전개

In financial transaction practice, the bill obligor may request the paying bank to suspend the payment of the bill because of a certain reason for the bill, and at the same time deposit the amount equivalent to the bill. This money is generally called a "special deposit", but the following disputes arise between the bill holder and the paying bank over this deposit. That is, the bill holder tries to collect the bill receivables that he / she has against the bill debtor from the deposit, while the paying bank collects the loan receivables that he / she has against the bill debtor. It tries to collect its own loan receivables by offsetting it with the special deposit refund receivables it has. In such cases, whether or not bank offsetting is permissible is the issue of "separate deposits and offsetting", which is the subject of this study. In this study, the author, who studies Korean law as a Japanese civil law researcher, examined the development of Korean law regarding "separate deposits and offset" from the perspective of Japan-Korea comparative civil law research. In this paper, we organized the developments of Japanese law and Korean law on the same theme, and clarified the following characteristics of Korean law by comparing the two. That is, (1) The judgment of the Daihoin on January 31, 1989 eliminates the disparity in protection for legitimate bill right holders that occurred "before" and "after" the revision of the bill exchange agreement on January 5, 1987. In order to do so, unlike the Japanese judicial precedent, the offset right abuse doctrine was used to deny the offsetting of the bank with the deposit refund claim as the working claim. Has introduced the "accident declaration security deposit system", which has established a mechanism to directly guarantee the rights of the bill holders who are found to be legitimate bill holders, and (3) the bill exchange agreement in Korea. With the amendment of, if 6 months have passed since the bill was presented without submitting a document certifying that the bill holder, etc. is pending in the lawsuit to the paying bank, the paying bank will accept a special deposit refund claim. There is a new question as to whether it is possible to claim offsetting the claim. He also pointed out that the core of the issue of “separate deposits and offsetting” in Korean law lies in the timing of the occurrence of offsetting conditions, especially the fulfillment of the “mutual conflict” requirement.