예금채권의 소멸시효 및 위법행위와 손해 사이의 인과관계 ― 대법원 2022. 4. 28. 선고 2020다268265 판결의 검토 ―

The Supreme Court decision 2020da268265 issued on April 28, 2022 involved a case where the plaintiff deposited a cashier's check in the plaintiff's name with the defendant (National Credit Union Federation of Korea) through an agent (his mistress). The money was illegally withdrawn by the agent and an employee of the defendant. The plaintiff made a main claim against the defendant for a refund of the deposit and a preliminary claim for indemnification based on the employer's liability. In the case here, the issue was whether a deposit claim is subject to the statute of limitations and if so, what the period of the statute of limitations is; whether the statute of limitations should be considered suspended if the bank pays an interest on the deposit because the payment of interest constitutes an acknowledgment of the debt; whether the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's claim of deposit refund has been extinguished by prescription does not conform to the principle of good faith; whether the plaintiff suffered a “loss” from not being able to properly exercise its claim on the bank deposit against the defendant due to the tort of the defendant’s employee; on the theory that the plaintiff suffered a “loss” when the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant regarding the bank deposit claim is extinguished after the statute of limitations has expired, whether a proximate causal relation between the loss and the tort of the defendant’s employee is recognized. Regarding this question, it was held in the Supreme Court decision 2020da268265 issued on April 28, 2022 that a savings account deposit is subject to the statute of limitations, but the bank’s payment of the interest on the deposit tolled the statute of limitations. The court found a proximate causal relation between the tort of the defendant's employee and the loss suffered by the plaintiff. In this paper, in order to determine the validity of the Supreme Court decision 2020da268265 issued in April 28, 2022, I conducted the research in the following sequence. First, I reviewed whether the statute of limitations applies to the plaintiff's claim on the deposit; and if the statute of limitations applies, whether the plaintiff's act of making a deposit constitutes an ancillary commercial act and a 5-year commercial statute of limitations applies to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant; whether the fact that the bank paid an interest to the plaintiff constitutes an acknowledgment of the debt and tolls the statute of limitations. Second, in order to examine whether the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's deposit claim against the defendant was extinguished by prescription contravenes the principle of good faith, I examined precedents which addressed the issue of whether a defense based on the statute of limitations violates the principle of good faith and sought to identify the legal reasoning in the precedents related to this issue. Third, in order to explore whether a proximate causal relation is recognized between the expiration of the statute of limitations on the plaintiff's deposit claim and the tort of the defendant's employee, I reflected on whether a loss can be recognized because the plaintiff was not able to properly exercise the deposit claim against the defendant, and if a loss is recognized, whether a proximate causal relation with the tort of the defendant's employee could be recognized.