2. The plaintiff's claim against Defendant Han-gu is dismissed.

3. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the above defendant, while the part incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant Han-gu shall be borne by the plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

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

In full view of the following facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (written application for credit card entry, defendant Han-sung's seal imprinted and sealed by the defendant Kim Sung-sung, although it is not sufficient to acknowledge that there is no dispute between the plaintiff and defendant Han-sung, since the entire document is presumed to have been authentic, and the authenticity of the document is established by testimony between the plaintiff and defendant Kim Sung-sik (written application for credit card entry, defendant Han-sung's seal imprinted and sealed, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge it). The statement Nos. 2 (Membership) and the above witness's testimony and arguments are acknowledged to have been authentic by the above witness's testimony, and the above witness's testimony and oral argument were issued on June 13, 1983; if the above defendant presented the bank's credit card merchant to the plaintiff and signed the above bank's signature on the credit card No. 200,000,1500,000 won, then the defendant can purchase the above amount to the plaintiff's account no later than the end of 17th day after the above settlement agreement.

Therefore, the above defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the same rate as from June 1, 1987 to June 31, 1987, the sum of 9,33,071 won in total and 8,782,243 won in total and damages for delay at the rate of 19% per annum from the date when the plaintiff made a substitute payment for the purchase price of the defendant's goods to the member store as set forth in paragraphs (1) to (9) of the above sight table (B) as sought by the plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim for Defendant Han-sung

Defendant Kim Sung-sik concluded a bank credit card membership agreement on June 13, 1983 and was issued a credit card and traded after being renewed on June 5, 1985, as acknowledged earlier. In full view of each of the above statements, No. 1, No. 2, and the testimony of the above witness, Defendant Kim Sung-sik at the time when concluding the above bank membership agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on June 13, 1983, it can be acknowledged that Defendant Kim Sung-sung guaranteed the obligation of Defendant Kim Sung-sung to the Plaintiff arising out of the above contract without any separate provision, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

The plaintiff asserts that the joint and several sureties agreed that the effect of the joint and several sureties at the time of the re-issuance of the credit card will continue even at the time of the re-issuance of the credit card. Therefore, the defendant Kim Sung-sik is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount recognized prior to the use of the

However, according to Article 12(2) of the above Rules, joint and several sureties’s credit card entry application form which the Defendants submitted to the Plaintiff at the time of the above contract provides that the effect of the guarantee continues to exist even in the extension and re-issuance of the card. However, according to the above evidence, Article 3(2) and (3) of the above Rules provides that the term of validity of the credit card shall be until the date determined by the Plaintiff, and if the term of validity of the card comes into existence, new cards shall be issued to the members deemed appropriate, and there is no provision to confirm the guarantor’s intent regarding the renewal of the card. Thus, according to the above rules, the Plaintiff may extend the term of validity to the members at his own option, but it cannot be viewed that the term of validity of the guarantee agreement cannot be extended to one of the parties to the contract, unless the Plaintiff notifies the renewal of the term of validity of the credit card entry into force, and thus, it is unreasonable to recognize that the term of validity of the credit card entry into force only after the expiration of the term of validity.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant Kim Sung-sik is liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 19% per annum from June 1, 1987 to the full payment date as to the amount of KRW 9,33,071 and KRW 8,782,243 among them. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking such payment is justified, and the Plaintiff’s claim for Defendant Han-sung is dismissed as without any justifiable reason. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of litigation costs, Article 199 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the declaration of provisional execution, Article 6 of the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc.

Judges Yellow Sea (Presiding Judge)