[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Central District

the representative director Ha00

Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. The Plaintiffs entered into a 00 master card subscription contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant on the Internet, sales store visits, telephone calls, etc. on the business recorded in the column of “List of Card Issuance” column, and the Defendant entered into a 00 master card subscription contract (hereinafter “the instant contract”). The Plaintiffs’ card issuance month, card validity period, and card number are as indicated in the corresponding column in the separate sheet of the card.

The annual fee of the above credit card is KRW 20,000, and the defendant agreed to provide additional services such as providing 00 mileage per 2,000 days per card use (hereinafter referred to as "existing mileage") in addition to services due to the original function of the credit card.

(b) Modification of standards for provision of mileage;

The defendant, around December 2006, announced that the existing mileage provided to 00 plastic card members on his own website, etc. is changed from January 1, 2007 to 2 miles per 1,500 won per card use (hereinafter referred to as "the changed mileage"). In fact, the changed mileage was provided from May 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008, and the mileage provided by the plaintiffs as changed mileage from May 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 are as shown in the column of "the mileage provided by June 30, 2008."

C. Relevant terms and conditions

On the other hand, the defendant revised the terms and conditions of personal membership (hereinafter referred to as "the terms and conditions of this case") on March 20, 2006, and "the terms and conditions of the provision and use of services added to credit cards" in Article 26 (2) may be changed according to the circumstances of the bank or the relevant affiliated agency, and the details of the change shall be notified in advance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 22, Eul evidence No. 25 through Eul No. 28, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' contents about the criteria for the provision of mileage under the contract of this case are important parts, and the defendant's change is without any grounds against the plaintiffs who joined the contract of this case before March 20, 2006, which newly established the reservation clause of the right to modify the contract of this case. The above provision also applies to the plaintiffs who joined after March 20, 2006 as well as the provision that grants business operators the right to unilaterally determine or change the contents of the payment without reasonable grounds, and even if the contract is valid, it cannot be changed on the ground of this. Thus, the defendant's change in the criteria for the provision of mileage constitutes a violation of the contract of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to provide the existing mileage according to the initial contract during the term of validity of the credit card as compensation for damages.

B. On March 20, 2006, with regard to the plaintiffs who entered into the contract of this case prior to the amendment of the terms and conditions after the amendment of the terms and conditions of this case on March 20, 2006, not only explained the possibility of changing additional services, such as the standards for provision of mileage through product information, etc., but also notified the possibility of changing the terms and conditions of this case.

Since March 20, 2006, the plaintiffs who entered into an agreement after the reservation clause of the right to modify the terms and conditions of this case is not unfair terms and conditions, but is not subject to the duty to explain, and are subject to domestic affairs.

Even if so, the duty to explain was fulfilled.

In addition, the plaintiffs agree by not raising any objection against the defendant's announcement of the change in the criteria for the provision of mileage, and even though the defendant knew about the change in the criteria for the provision of mileage through the defendant's above announcement, it is against the principle of good faith to continuously use the credit card and to request the provision of mileage.

Although the plaintiffs' request for family affairs is reasonable, since they continue to use credit cards without paying annual fees at the time when they pay new annual fees if they are dissatisfied with the defendant's request for change of annual fees, the provision of existing mileage is applicable only to the time when the defendant newly pays annual fees after November 2006, which was announced by the defendant, or at least to the time when the card company pays new annual fees, may change or suspend points and card-related services provided to members according to the credit card company's business policy or partnership's circumstances, and notify and suspend the contents thereof three months before the notification. "The personal standard terms and conditions of credit card members of the Fair Trade Commission, which are defined as "," was enforced from July 15, 2008 by the defendant since July 15, 2008, the changed mileage shall be applied.

3. Judgment on the issue

A. According to the evidence Eul evidence No. 4 against the plaintiffs who entered into the contract of this case before March 20, 2006, it is difficult to recognize that "the contents introduced to this notice may be changed without prior notice according to the circumstances of affiliation and conduct" in the 00 master card product information book prepared by the defendant, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant delivered the product information certificate to the plaintiffs who entered into the contract of this case before March 20, 2006, with the statement No. 5 through No. 7 and the witness testimony No. 00, 00, and each testimony of No. 5 through No. 7 as to the fact that the defendant delivered the product information certificate to the plaintiffs who entered into the contract of this case before March 20, 206. Further, even if the above product information certificate was delivered, it is difficult to regard it as part of the contract of this case, and even if the modified terms and conditions apply to the above plaintiffs, it cannot be asserted as the contents of the contract of this case in this case without any evidence.

B. On or after March 20, 2006, the contents of the newly established terms and conditions are deemed null and void under the terms and conditions in light of the following: (a) the effect of the newly established terms and conditions is deemed null and void under the terms and conditions; (b) the health class, mileage provision service is an additional service under the contract of this case; and (c) the need to change the contents of the terms and conditions in relation to the services may arise; and (d) whether the terms and conditions are deemed null and void under the terms and conditions in light of the following: (i) whether the terms and conditions are deemed null and void under the terms and conditions; and (ii)

Under the Terms and Conditions Act, a business entity is in principle required to explain the important contents of terms and conditions so that customers can understand them, and the term "important contents" refers to matters directly affecting customers in determining whether to conclude a contract or the price for the consideration thereof in light of social norms, and what constitutes an important contents of the terms and conditions cannot be uniformly determined in light of individual circumstances in specific cases (Supreme Court Decision 2008.)

12. On June 16, 2007Ma1328, see Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1328, 2007). Even if the terms and conditions subject to the duty to explain are important, if a customer or his/her agent fully knows the contents of the terms and conditions, or if the customer could have sufficiently anticipated such matters without a separate explanation, it cannot be said that the business operator has the duty to explain such matters (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da8044, May 27, 2010).

In this case, although the mileage provision is not related to the original function of the credit card, since all credit cards have the original function of the credit card, the standard for determining which credit card customers choose among several credit cards is the content of the additional service. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence 8-1 and Eul evidence 4, the defendant also has accumulated 2 math (1,000 mileage provision) more than the 00 mileage large-scale large-scale large-scale large-scale large-scale and 1,000 won per 1,000 won when advertising the card in this case. The fact that the plaintiffs notified the contents of the criteria for the provision of mileage, the plaintiffs also concluded the contract in this case by considering the above important contents, etc., the annual fee constitutes an important part of the contract in this case, and therefore, the newly established terms and conditions of the service in this case are subject to the duty to explain.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the customer's modification of the criteria for mileage provision service is well aware of the content of the criteria, or that the customer could have sufficiently predicted without any separate explanation because it is general and common to the transaction.

3) Whether the duty of explanation has been fulfilled

As to the fact that the defendant fulfilled his duty to explain to the plaintiffs, it is not sufficient to recognize that Eul evidence No. 4 through Eul evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 19-1 through No. 74, Eul evidence No. 31-2, and testimony No. 1, No. 00, Kim00, and No. 100, respectively. (In this regard, the defendant alleged that the defendant fulfilled his duty to explain to the plaintiffs in the contract of this case through the Internet, and that the defendant fulfilled his duty to explain to the plaintiffs in the contract of this case. Thus, according to each of the above statements No. 33 evidence No. 1, No. 2, No. 34-1, No. 35-2, No. 35-1, and No. 2, the defendant's explanation that the contract of this case should be read and applied for a credit card member on the Internet, and that the defendant's application for a credit card member's explanation is not sufficient to understand the contents of the contract of this case.

C. Even if the plaintiffs did not raise an objection against the defendant's announcement of the change in the criteria for provision of mileage, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs consented to the change in the criteria for provision of mileage. Even if the plaintiffs knew about the change in the criteria for provision of mileage, it is not determined that the use of the card continuously thereafter and the claim for provision of the existing mileage until the effective period of the card is contrary to the good faith.

D. As seen above, the Defendant’s argument that with respect to the period of the provision of mileage prior to the date of the payment of mileage, the above change is not effective even though the Defendant announced about the change of the standard of the provision of mileage around November 2006. Thus, with respect to the Plaintiffs who entered into the instant contract prior to May 1, 2007, the standard of the provision of mileage should be provided by each of the effective periods indicated in the separate list of the card in the separate sheet, and it should be applied only to the time when the new annual fee is paid after November 2006. In addition, according to the evidence No. 17 and evidence No. 22, the Defendant adopted the standard of the standardized contract by the Fair Trade Commission, as alleged by the Defendant, and implemented since July 15, 2008.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant shall provide the plaintiffs of this case with mileages according to the existing mileage provision criteria by the effective date of each card. Since the defendant provided unilaterally changed mileages from May 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008, the amount of mileages to be additionally provided by the plaintiffs in addition to the mileages provided by the defendant from the defendant until June 30, 2008 is the same as the list of the card in attached Form No. 1. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, the defendant provided the plaintiffs of this case with the card No. 500, 100, 100, 200, 100, 100, 100, 100, 200, 100, 100, 700, 100, 100, 100, 100, 200, 100, 200, 200, 200, 00,00.

After the expiration of the term of validity of the card, the Plaintiff's 00, strong0, Kim00, Kim00, Kim00, Kim00, Kim00, Kim00, Kim00, Kim00, Kim00, Kim00, Kim00, Kim00, 000, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 000, 00, 000, 000, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.

7. 1. From 1. to 3.0, there is a duty to provide 00 mileages by the ratio of 1,000 won per credit card use to 2.0 days per 1,00 won.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted on the grounds of all.