论文部分内容阅读
2000年9月16日,赵某在杭州市邮政局下属的某邮政储蓄所(以下简称储蓄所)开立通存通兑帐户,并自行设置密码,存入人民币17万元,取得存折一本。同年9月29日,赵某持存折前往储蓄所要求取款17万元。却被告知,该存折余额仅为1160元,其余款项已被人在福建省三明市某邮政储蓄所分两次取走,赵某以本人未曾取款为由,要求储蓄所立即支付存款17万元,储蓄所拒付,为此双方发生纠纷,诉至法院。一审法院认定,储蓄所有义务确保储户存款安全,现储户未使用过存折,存款却被人支取,因此属储蓄所违约,判决其兑付赵某存款人民币17万元,并支付相应的存款利息计人民币4896元。储蓄所不
On September 16, 2000, Zhao opened a deposit and withdrawal account at a postal savings office (hereinafter referred to as “savings bank”) under Hangzhou Post Office and set a password for himself and deposited RMB 170,000 to obtain a passbook. On September 29 of the same year, Zhao held a passbook and went to the savings bank for a withdrawal of 170,000 yuan. But was told that the balance of the passbook was only 1160 yuan, the remaining funds have been removed in two divisions of a postal savings bank in Sanming City, Fujian Province, Zhao did not withdraw their money on the grounds that the deposit required to deposit 17 million , The bank refuses to pay, for which two sides have the dispute, sue to the court. The court of first instance held that all the obligations of the depositors were to ensure the depositors’ deposit was safe and the depositors had not used the passbooks but the depositors had been withdrawn. Therefore, the court of first instance breached the contract and ruled that they should pay the deposit of RMB170,000 to Zhao and pay the corresponding deposit interest amount in Renminbi 4896 yuan. Savings are not