2. Defendant 2 shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to 6,831,496 won out of the amount set forth in paragraph (1) and the amount equivalent to 6,483,031 won per annum from February 9, 1987 to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

4. The costs of litigation are assessed against the above defendant, while the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 is assessed against the above defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 is assessed against the plaintiff, and the remaining part is assessed against the above defendant.

5. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article may be provisionally executed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

The plaintiff shall enter the above 1-1 (non-member card 1-2), 2-1-2 (non-member card 1-3), 3-3-1-2 (non-member card 3), 4-1-2 (non-member card 4-2), and 9-1-1-6 (non-member card 9-2)-2)-1-1-6 (non-member card 9-7)-1-6)-2-1-6 (non-member card 9-7)-1-6)-2-1-6 (non-member card 9-7)-1-6)-1-6)-1-6 (1-6)-7)-7)-1-6 (1-6)-7)-7)-1-6 (1-6)-7)-1-6)-1-6 (1-6)-6)-6)-1-6 (1-6)-1-6)-7)-1-3 (1-6)-6)-6)-1-6)-6 (1-6)-6)-2)-3)-3)-7 (3)-7)-7)-1-7 (3)-2)-3)-3)-3 (3)-3)-7);

Therefore, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 19% per annum from October 29, 1986 to February 8, 1987, the agreed interest rate of 15,586 won (15,547,227 won x 0.19 x 0.19 x 0.19 x 103/365, as requested by the Plaintiff; hereinafter the same shall apply) equivalent to 16,364,617 won as well as 15,5317 won as principal and 15,531,031 won as of February 9, 1987 as of February 8, 1987.

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2

The fact that Defendant 1 concluded a membership agreement with the Plaintiff on October 15, 1985 and traded with the card issued is recognized as above. The fact that Defendant 2 guaranteed Defendant 1’s obligation to use the card against the Plaintiff at the time of the above membership agreement does not conflict between the parties.

The plaintiff's joint and several sureties is jointly and severally liable with defendant 1 to pay all debts arising from the use of the card by the defendant 1's joint and several sureties's joint and several sureties who are joint and several sureties's credit card payment obligations. The defendant 2 is liable only for the debts to be borne by using the card in accordance with the method of using the card agreed upon by the defendant 1 at the time of conclusion of the credit card opening contract. Since the use of the card of this case is merely the use of the false card in collusion with the member's false transaction without the transaction of goods or services, the defendant 2 is not liable for joint and several sureties's guarantee liability. Thus, according to the above evidence No. 1-2, No. 1-2, and No. 2 (Rules), the plaintiff can request the plaintiff's credit card member's purchase of the credit card in collusion with the third party's credit card's credit card sales contract without any dispute to its establishment. According to the above rules, the plaintiff's credit card opening's credit card sales agreement can be separately provided (Article 8).

Therefore, in this case, Defendant 1's statement of transactions by using the above card of this case 4-2, official portion and receipt thereof are without dispute between the parties, and sexual part is no more than 9-1, 2, 3 (each authentic document), Eul's statement 3-1, 2 (each receipt) and witness's statement 4-1, 3-1, 2 (each receipt) and 9-1, 300 million won, and the remaining amount of money issued by the Defendant after deducting the amount of money from the above 1,2, 47, 10, 12 through 16, 19, 31, 38 through 38, and 16-10, 300 won in cash or 4-100, 300 won in total from the above 9-1,000 won in exchange for the above 1-2, 300,000 won in exchange for the above 1-2,000 won in cash account.

Therefore, Defendant 2 is liable for joint and several liability for 10,282,10 won as above or as to the above use price of 10,282,10 won as to which Defendant 1 received goods or services or received cash payment services. However, as to the remainder of 9,048,00 won arising from preparing a false sale price without such transaction, Defendant 2 is not liable for joint and several liability. Accordingly, as to the joint and several liability owed by Defendant 2 to the Plaintiff as of October 28, 1986, the amount of the above 10,282,10 won plus 3,782,873 won, which the Plaintiff received from Defendant 1 and deducted from 3,49,227 won by 9,49,227 won. Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 1, 1987, 196, 196, 298, 196, 1963, 298.

As to this, Defendant 2, around August 1986, issued 15 copies of the household check at par value 1,00,000 won by Defendant 1 for the payment of the credit card use price. Accordingly, Defendant 2's defense that Defendant 2's joint and several liability was extinguished. Thus, there is no dispute over each establishment, and the remainder is no other, and each statement of the evidence No. 8-1 through 15 (each household check) which is recognized to be established by the witness's testimony, and the testimony of the above witness is taken full account of the following facts: the Plaintiff, around August 1986, issued 15 copies of the household check at face value 1,00,000 won from Defendant 1 as the payment of the card use price, barring any other counter-proof evidence, but there is no other counter-proof, it is presumed that Defendant 2's obligation was paid for the payment of the original obligation, and thus, Defendant 2 still remains liable until the payment of the check is settled.

In addition, Defendant 2 argues that since June 1986, the Plaintiff neglected to recover the cost of using the card from Defendant 1 for the five-month period from the time when Defendant 1 got out of Korea to the time when Defendant 1 got out of Korea, Defendant 2's joint and several liability should be taken into account in determining Defendant 2's liability in accordance with the fair and equitable principle. However, there is no evidence to deem that there was negligence in determining Defendant 2's liability, but the joint and several surety and the joint and several surety are liable to pay jointly and severally with the principal obligor, and the obligee may file a claim against the joint and several surety without claiming against the principal obligor. Since the obligee neglected to collect the principal obligor's debt after the occurrence of the claim, the joint and several surety's liability should not be newly created or expanded, and the above assertion by Defendant 2 is groundless.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 19% per annum from February 9, 1987 to the date of full payment as to 16,364,617 won and 15,531,031 won among them. Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 1 to pay damages for delay at the same rate from February 9, 1987 to the date of full payment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is justified only within the extent of the above recognition, the remainder is dismissed, and the provisional execution is declared in accordance with Articles 89, 92, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 19 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Judges Yellow Sea (Presiding Judge)