Hello, Lawnet sent you 01 judgment with a similar situation for your reference:
Specifically, in the Judgment 207/2022/DS-PT dated September 27, 2022 on the dispute over the property depository contract of the People's Court of Dak Lak province, with the following contents:
From 2011 to January 16, 2014, trusting Ms. H1, Mr. S gave money to Ms. H1 6 times with a total amount of VND 300,000,000 to deposit in the bank; Every time he gave money, Mrs. H1 asked him to sign in the left corner 02 blank sheets of A5 paper, so that Ms. H1 would carry out the procedures to deposit money into the Bank; The first 5 times he gave money to Mrs. H1 for savings, Mrs. H1 brought the passbook number: 12345678 with his name on it, but the last time, Mrs. H1 did not bring the passbook to him; he asked Mrs. H1 to hand over the passbook, then Mrs. H1 found many reasons to refuse; He suspected Ms. H1 of dishonesty, so in October 2015, when he went to Bank T at branch B, to withdraw the money he had deposited, the Bank thinks that he withdrawn all 300,000,000 VND in savings on January 17, 2014; In fact, he never went to the bank to withdraw money. Therefore, he filed a lawsuit to request the Court to settle: Forcing Bank T to return to him VND 300,000,000 that he had deposited with the Bank and the interest as prescribed by law from January 16th/ 2014.
First instance decision of the People's Court of Buon Ma Thuot city, Dak Lak province:
- Accepting the petition of Mr. Le Ba S.
Bank T and Ms. Hoang Thi H1, are jointly responsible for paying Mr. Le Ba S VND 300,000,000 of the principal and VND 189,625,000 in interest up to the date of the first-instance trial, totaling VND 489.625,000; Divided by parts: Bank T must pay Mr. S 150,000,000 VND of principal and 94,812,500 VND of interest; Ms. Hoang Thi H1 must pay Mr. S 150,000,000 VND of principal and 94,812,500 VND of interest.
The court decision being appealed:
+ Bank T believes that the Court's decision is not objective because on January 17, 2014, the Bank alreadysettled for Mr. S 300,000,000 VND of principal and 883 VND of interest.
+ Mrs. H1 believes that Mr. S's lawsuit claiming that she had saved VND 300,000,000 in bank T at Transaction Office B is not true; She does not know how Mr. S deposited his savings in the bank and withdrew them.
Appellate Decision of the People's Court of Dak Lak Province:
- Not accepting the appeal of Bank T; accepting the appeal of Ms. Hoang Thi H1.
- Mr. S could not provide evidence to prove that he gave money to Ms. H1 to deposit in the bank.
- Based on the assessment results, the content covered in the writing Le Ba S, on the savings transaction request form dated January 17, 2014, is the word "Hoang Thi"; Signature and handwriting with the full name Le Ba S, on payment slip No. BTTLR12736/33, dated January 17, 2014, were signed and written before the text was printed.
Therefore, Bank T at Transaction Office B, took advantage of Mr. Le Ba S's signature and full name, on a blank sheet of paper, to fill in the content on January 17, 2014, to pay Mr. S 300,000,833 VND. Therefore, this document is not valid to prove that the Bank has paid Mr. S.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Code 2015:
Article 554. Contracts for bailment of property in Vietnam
Contract for bailment of property means an agreement between parties whereby a bailee accepts the property of a bailor for safekeeping, for return to the bailor upon expiry of the duration of the contract, and the bailor must pay a fee to the bailee, except where the bailment is free of charge.
Thus, the contract for depositing the property is based on the agreement between the parties for the consignee to preserve and return the property and receive a reasonable fee (if any). In the above case, Bank T at Transaction Office B established a fake transaction based on Mr. S's previous signature in order to avoid the obligation to return the property. Bank T has breached the contract by not depositing the property.
Article 557. Obligation of bailees of property in Vietnam
Take care of the property as agreed and return it to the bailor in the same condition in which the bailee received it.
Compensate for damage where the bailee causes any loss of or damage to the bailed property, except in the case of an event of force majeure.
Article 580. Property to be returned
A person possessing or using property unlawfully must return the whole of such property.
A person deriving benefits from property unlawfully must return, either in kind or in money, the benefits derived from the property to any person having suffered loss of such benefits.
According to the law, when people deposit money at a bank and have been issued a passbook, this money is managed by the bank. If money is lost or misappropriated, the bank is responsible for refunding the customer.
Thus, Bank T must be responsible for returning the property to Mr. S with the savings deposit amount of VND 300,000,000 in the same condition as when it was held. At the same time, Bank T, which possesses and uses Mr. S's property without any legal basis, must return all assets obtained by taking advantage of Mr. Le Ba S's signature and full name, on a blank sheet of paper, to fill in the content.
At the same time, if Bank T benefits from the property (VND 300,000,000) without any legal basis, it must return the profit (interest of VND 189,625,000) from that property. The bank, when returning the profit to Mr. S, can refund it in kind or in cash.
Thus, according to the above judgment, the People's Court of Dak Lak province's decision not to accept the appeal of Bank T is completely grounded and in accordance with the law.
Please Login to be able to download