女子1997年存入2万元定期，27年后利息只有4000多元！她将银行告上法庭，法官查明关键疑点

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights a dispute between a customer and a bank regarding the handling of a long-term deposit, where the customer expected automatic renewal of the deposit but was instead given minimal interest due to the bank's failure to process the renewal correctly over the years [1][2][4]. Group 1: Background of the Case - In 1997, a customer deposited 20,000 yuan in a bank with a manual deposit slip, expecting it to be automatically renewed [2]. - By the end of 2024, the customer was shocked to find that the bank had only paid less than 5,000 yuan in interest [1][2]. - The bank claimed that the manual deposit slip did not specify automatic renewal, thus the funds were treated as current deposits [2][3]. Group 2: Customer's Argument - The customer argued that the bank had assured her that the deposit would be automatically renewed, leading her to trust the bank with her funds [2][3]. - She believed that other financial institutions would typically handle automatic renewals in similar situations, and the bank's failure to do so violated her rights [2][3]. Group 3: Bank's Defense - The bank maintained that it had no legal obligation to renew the deposit automatically since the terms did not specify such an arrangement [2][3]. - The bank's legal representatives cited the "priority of agreement" clause in the Savings Deposit Regulations to support their position [3]. Group 4: Resolution of the Dispute - An investigation revealed that the bank had initially processed the deposit correctly but failed to transfer the automatic renewal feature when converting from manual to electronic records in 2003 [4]. - After recognizing the oversight, the bank offered a compensation plan based on the interest that would have been earned had the deposit been automatically renewed [5]. - The customer accepted the compensation, reflecting a resolution that acknowledged both legal and social considerations in the context of evolving banking practices [5].