[2] Whether the legal representative's consent to the legal act of a minor may be implicitly granted (affirmative)

[3] Criteria for determining whether a legal representative's implied consent or permission for disposal is granted in a legal act of a minor, and whether the case of purchase by credit card and cash purchase should be viewed differently (negative)

[4] In a case where a minor aged 19 years old or older entered into a credit purchase contract within the scope of monthly income, the case holding that the above credit purchase contract constitutes an act of disposal within the scope of property permitted for disposal on the ground that the legal representative's implied permission for disposal was granted

[2] The consent of the legal representative required for a minor to conduct a legal act is not always explicitly but implicitly possible, and where the minor's act constitutes the disposition of the legal representative's implied consent or the disposition of the property permitted for disposal as above, the legal act cannot be cancelled as a minor on the ground that he/she has no capacity to do so.

[3] In determining whether a legal representative's implied consent or permission for disposition exists in a legal act by a minor, the minor's age, intelligence, occupation, and career, living together with his/her legal representative, whether or not he/she has independent income, whether or not he/she has economic activities, whether or not he/she has been engaged in economic activities, the nature of the contract, details of the contract, and all other circumstances shall be comprehensively taken into account. If the scope of the property permitted for implied consent or disposition is within the scope of the property permitted for use of credit card, barring any special circumstance, it is not necessary to regard the case where he/she intends to settle the goods and services after

[4] In a case where a minor who was 19 years old or older entered into a credit purchase contract within the scope of monthly income, the case holding that the above credit purchase contract constitutes an act of disposal within the scope of property permitted for disposal on the ground that there was a legal representative's implied permission for disposal

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. An incompetent person system is recognized as a basic ideology of the Civil Act, which is the principle of private autonomy, especially an instrument that enables a minor to realize the principle of self-responsibility, and there exists a fundamental legislative purpose in protecting an incompetent person even if the safety of transaction is sacrificeed. In light of the nature of the system of incompetent person and its legislative purpose, even if a credit card merchant knew that the minor would not cancel the above contract on the ground that the minor did not consent of his/her legal representative at the time of concluding the credit purchase contract with the minor, it is difficult to regard that the minor's exercise of the right of cancellation against the above trust of the chain store as a condition that is not acceptable in light of the concept of justice, and allowing the minor's legal representative to consent to the legal act is a mandatory provision. If it is rejected for reasons of violation of the good faith principle that the minor voluntarily cancels the credit purchase contract that was made contrary to the above provision, this would result in the minor's realization of the result and thus, it cannot be said that the legal representative's consent to cancel it later without the consent of the legal representative.

B. However, the consent of legal representative required for a minor to engage in a juristic act is not always explicitly but implicitly possible. On the other hand, the Civil Act provides for exceptional cases where a minor, who is incompetent to act, can independently do a juristic act without the consent of his/her legal representative, such as the disposal of property permitted to dispose of within the scope, and where the minor's act constitutes either the implied consent of his/her legal representative or the disposal of property permitted to dispose of, as mentioned above, the minor cannot be revoked on the ground that he/she has no capacity to act.

In addition, in determining whether implied consent or disposition permission exists, the minor's age, intelligence, occupation, and career, whether or not a legal representative living together with his/her own income, whether or not he/she has independent income, whether or not he/she is engaged in economic activities, the nature of the contract, details of the contract, and other circumstances shall be comprehensively taken into account. If the above legal principle is within the scope of the property permitted for implied consent or disposition, unless there are special circumstances, it is no need to regard it as a case of cash purchase immediately in cases where he/she intends to make payment after credit purchase of goods and services with a credit card.

C. According to the records, as a student of August 26, 1982, the plaintiff was 19 years of age and 2 months of age and 4 months near majority at the time of each credit purchase contract of this case, and was 60,000 won or more per month through economic activities at the time, and most of the credit purchase contracts of this case were relatively small daily transactions, such as foodstuffs, clothing, cosmetics, and phrases, and most of them are purchase in installments, it can be viewed that monthly use does not go beyond the scope of the plaintiff's income. Considering these circumstances, the plaintiff had an implied permission to dispose of the income that the legal representative acquired at the time, and each credit purchase contract of this case constitutes a disposal act within the property scope permitted for disposal as above.

D. Therefore, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the cancellation of each credit purchase contract of this case violates the good faith principle. However, the court below is justified in rejecting the plaintiff's claim on this part and accepting the defendant's claim for counterclaim. Thus, it cannot be said that there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal No. 1 is without merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 2 is purporting that there was an error of violation of precedents, etc. as alleged in the lower court’s additional determination, but as seen earlier, the lower court’s main determination rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion of revocation of each credit purchase contract of this case was eventually justifiable, so the lower court’s additional determination cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal No. 2 is without merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)