On Mar. 19, the Supreme Court decided that as long as a deposit contract was formed through real name verification procedures, an owner of deposit funds other than a deposit title-holder would be regarded as the party to deposit contract at the extraordinary cases where there should exist the written contract between the financial institution and the owner of deposit funds. Previous court decisions had held that a claim to return of deposit could be vested in the owner of deposit funds, not the deposit title-holder even by means of explicit or tactic agreements between the financial institution and the owner of deposit funds. According to the recent Supreme Court`s decision, even though, at the time the deposit contract was formed, the financial institution knew the circumstances where the owner of deposit funds did not deliver a deposit passbook and a transaction personal seal to the deposit title-holder, and possessed them, thereby withdrawing interests or principal of the deposit, it shall not be determined that the financial institution had intent to enter into a deposit contract with the owner of deposit funds. The Court`s decision seems to be in line with the intents of parties involved in a deposit contract and our financial circumstances. First, the financial transactions occurring massively, repeatedly like deposit contract must be treated by the financial institution in fixed form and with speed. In addition to, since August 12, 1993, our people have come to know that all financial transactions, in principle, must go through verification procedures of real name transactions. Above all, non-real name financial transactions made by hiding real name may be used in unlawful and illegal acts such as tax evasion, hiding of fruits of crimes and money laundry, etc. Therefore the deposit title-holder should be treated as a real name basically. In conclusion, the view of the Supreme Court that an owner of deposit funds who is not a deposit title-holder, is allowed to be acknowledged as the party to the deposit contract only in very exceptional cases is appropriate. The Court`s decision supports the legislative purport of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions substantially.