[해약환급금][공2016상,285]
Whether a company which takes over all of its business to a prepaid installment business operator succeeds to all rights and obligations of a prepaid installment contract pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Installment Transactions Act (affirmative), and the validity of an agreement excluding the succession between the parties to a contract for business transfer (negative)
The Installment Transactions Act (hereinafter “Installment Transactions Act”) provides for the purpose of protecting the rights and interests of consumers by ensuring fairness in transactions based on installment contracts and prepaid installment contracts, and mainly on the rights and obligations under private law, such as the written principle of installment contracts, installment commission rate of installment contracts, cancellation of order, and rescission. In particular, for prepaid installment business, the Act provides for the lower limit of capital, public law regulations such as investigation, supervision and corrective measures of administrative agencies, and obligation to conclude consumer damage compensation insurance contracts. This is to prevent damage to consumers arising from the characteristics of prepaid installment business, and the purport of the above provision on the succession of the status of the prepaid installment business operator following the transfer of business is to prevent damage that may arise in the event of business transfer rather than providing business convenience, and to protect consumers who concluded contracts with the prepaid installment business operator more strongly than the general creditors, and to exclude all rights and obligations of the prepaid installment business operator under Article 2 of the Installment Contracts Act including the rights and obligations to claim the transfer of contracts between the transferee and the transferee of the prepaid installment business operator under the Act (see Article 2 of the Installment Contracts Act).
Act on Installment Transactions (Article 2 subparagraph 2, Article 22(1), and Article 22-2(4)
Plaintiff
Korean Integration Co., Ltd.
Suwon District Court Decision 2014Na39722 decided July 17, 2015
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.
1. Where there is no precedent of the Supreme Court with regard to the interpretation of statutes applicable to a small case in a specific case, there is a case where a number of small claims, the issue of which is the interpretation of the same statutes, are pending in the lower court, and there is a case where the Supreme Court terminates the case without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes on the grounds that it is a small amount case, it would be likely that the legal safety of people's lives would be harmed if the case is terminated without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes. In such special circumstances, even if the Supreme Court did not meet the requirement of "when it makes a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court," which can be viewed as the ground for appeal for the small amount case, even if it does not meet the requirement of "when it makes a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court," it shall be deemed that the determination of errors in the interpretation and application of the substantive law can be made in a way
In this case, there is no precedent of the Supreme Court as to whether a company that received all of the pertinent business pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Installment Transactions Act, which is a key issue, succeeds to the rights and obligations of prepaid installment contracts, and there is a situation where the lower court's judgment is different. Thus, the lower court's interpretation and application of the above provision of this case is determined.
2. Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Installment Transactions Act provides that the term “prepaid installment contract” means a contract under which the price of goods, etc. prescribed by Presidential Decree is paid in two or more installments over a period of two or more months, and receives goods, etc. at the same time or after payment, in order to prevent consumer’s damage, such as services for funeral or wedding, and goods incidental thereto, and other goods, etc. that may occur, and Article 22(1) provides that the prepaid installment business operator transfers all of his/her business, the company that acquires the whole business shall succeed to the status of the prepaid installment
The Installment Transactions Act provides for the content of judicial rights and obligations, such as the written principle of installment contracts, installment commission rate of installment contracts, cancellation of order, and rescission, mainly for the purpose of protecting the rights and interests of consumers by fair transactions based on installment contracts and prepaid installment contracts. In particular, for prepaid installment business, the Act provides for the lower limit of capital, public law regulations such as investigation, supervision, and corrective measures of administrative agencies, and obligations to conclude consumer damage compensation insurance contracts are added. This is to prevent damages to consumers due to the characteristics of prepaid installment business in advance before the supply of goods, and the purport of the above provision on the succession to the status of the prepaid installment business operator following the transfer of business is not to recognize the succession to the status of public law and provide business convenience, rather than to protect consumers who have entered into a contract with the prepaid installment business operator more strongly than the general creditors who have entered into the contract with the prepaid installment business operator, and the Act on January 25, 2016 excludes all rights and obligations of the prepaid installment business operator under Article 2 of the Installment Contracts Act from the transfer of all rights and obligations of installment contracts (see Article 24).
3. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Plaintiff entered into the instant underwriting contract with Han Light Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Light Group”) which is a prepaid installment business operator on September 30, 2004, and paid in full the price of KRW 1.8 million by February 9, 2010, and terminated the instant lighting contract on or around May 2013, 2013. ② The Defendant, on October 1, 2013, accepted light and the entire members’ product share, the entire members’ product share, the total amount of installment payments received, and the details of installment payments received from all members, and paid KRW 60 million as the sales right price, ③ the Defendant agreed to be responsible for light view with Han Light Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Light Group”) and the fact that the registration of the instant underwriting business was revoked on or around December 4, 2013.
In this case where the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant succeeded to the contractual status under the instant light agreement by taking over or transferring the business from Han light light light light light, and sought payment of KRW 1,530,000 for the cancellation refund, the lower court determined that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have taken over the obligation to pay the cancellation refund of the instant light agreement already terminated, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim of this case.
However, in light of the above legal principles, if the defendant takes over the whole light light business of Korea Light, it shall be deemed that the defendant succeeds to the obligation to pay the cancellation refund to the plaintiff of Korea Light Light under Article 22(1) of the Installment Transactions Act.
Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case only for the reasons indicated in its holding, without examining the nature of Korea light and the underwriting contract between Korea and the defendant. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension and application of law as to the succession of the status of the prepaid installment business operator, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)