In a case where Party A agreed to receive additional services, such as accumulation of mileage according to the amount of credit card usage, upon entering into a membership agreement with Party B on credit card that was issued in alliance with Party B via the Internet, and Party B announced a reduction in the rate of accumulation on its Internet homepage, etc. pursuant to the terms and conditions on the change of additional services and provided Party B with mileage at the changed rate, and Party A sought payment of mileage according to the ratio of accumulation prior to the change, the case holding that Party B was obligated to provide mileage according to the ratio of accumulation agreed upon at the time of entering into a membership agreement, on the ground that Party B failed to perform its duty to explain the terms and conditions, and thus, it cannot be asserted as the content of the contract, and thus, Party A cannot

In a case where Gap agreed to receive additional services, such as the accumulation of mileage at a certain ratio based on the amount of credit card usage, while entering into a membership agreement with Eul corporation on credit card issued in partnership with Eul corporation, and Eul corporation offered mileage at the Internet homepage, etc. pursuant to the terms and conditions on the change of additional services, and Gap requested Eul to provide mileage at the changed rate of accumulation prior to the change, the case held that the standard of mileage provision is interpreted as having dealt with major contents of the contract beyond simple incidental services, and the agreement is treated as "Additional services" as provided in the terms and conditions, and furthermore, regardless of Gap's intent, the contents of the terms and conditions that the agreement can be unilaterally changed according to the circumstances of Eul corporation or its affiliated institution are important matters that may have direct influence when determining whether to enter into the contract, and it cannot be said that Gap knew it or it could not be expected that it had been well known or it could have been sufficiently predicted without any separate explanation, and thus Gap did not have an obligation to explain the terms and conditions at the time of entering into the contract.

Article 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Yellow-ray et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Han Card Co., Ltd. (Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

December 23, 2015

1. The Defendant will provide the Plaintiff with Category 19,479 and Category 30 from May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2018 at the rate of 1,500 won per credit card on the separate sheet (based on the amount used, which shall be accumulated on a separate basis, and the amount below the base amount of 1,500 won shall be cut).

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 20% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant will provide the plaintiff 23,433 Austria and us Madage calculated by the ratio of 1,500 won per 2 math day as stated in the attached Table from May 1, 2015 to May 31, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a membership agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) on the Defendant’s credit card division (including the parties at the time of the contract, but the foreign exchange card company was established on September 1, 2014 and transferred the rights and duties to the credit card sector of the foreign exchange bank. The foreign exchange card company changed the name of the Defendant on December 1, 2014; hereinafter “Defendant”) and via the Internet (hereinafter “Defendant”) on the foreign exchange Spanish Social Card (hereinafter “instant card”). The annual fee was KRW 10,000 (basic membership fee of KRW 5,00,000, annual membership fee of KRW 95,000, and KRW 200,000). In addition to the original function of the credit card company, the Plaintiff provided the Plaintiff’s claim for additional services by 20,000,0000 won per 1,500,0000,000 won under the instant contract.

B. Around February 26, 2013, the Defendant announced that the Defendant’s Internet homepage, etc., offered to the instant card members, etc., changed the connection mileage from September 1, 2013 to January 8, 200 per card use amount to 1,500 won. The Plaintiff offered the connection mileage changed from September 1, 2013 to April 30, 2015. The Plaintiff was provided with the 210,897 connection mileage according to the changed rate from the Defendant to April 30, 2015.

C. On December 13, 2010, the Defendant amended the Defendant’s standard contractual terms and conditions for personal members, and newly established Article 14(3)(hereinafter “instant standard contractual terms and conditions”). “Additional services, such as points and discount benefits, offered at the time of the use of a credit card, shall be maintained without reduction or abolition for not less than one year after the new issuance of the credit card, and when the alteration of additional services is made, two or more of the website, detailed statement of use cost, mail letter, e-mail (E-M AI) and two or more of the changes shall be notified of the reasons for change, change, etc. at least six months prior to the date of change. However, this provision does not apply to the unilateral change of the conditions of alliance, insolvency, natural disasters, financial environment, the sudden change of the credit card company’s management crisis, and other inevitable changes due to other similar reasons.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7 through 10, and 20, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The contents of the supplementary services regarding the criteria for the provision of mileage are important parts in the instant contract, and the Defendant unilaterally reduced the above additional services even though he agreed to provide the mileage at the rate of two days per 1,500 won per use at the time of the instant contract. Since the Defendant is obligated to provide the additional services under the instant contract, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of two days per 1,500 won per the instant card from September 1, 2013 to April 30, 2015, which was not paid by the Plaintiff during the period from September 30, 2013 to April 30, 2015.

2) Even if the terms and conditions of this case provide that additional services may be modified, the terms and conditions of this case fall under the terms and conditions of this case that grant business entities the right to unilaterally determine or change the contents of the benefits without reasonable grounds and the terms and conditions of this case which are unreasonably unfavorable to customers, and thus, are null and void pursuant to Articles 10 subparagraph 1 and 6 (2) subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Standard Terms and Conditions Regulation Act”).

3) The defendant violated his duty to explain the terms and conditions of this case, and the defendant cannot assert the terms and conditions of this case as the contents of the contract pursuant to Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) In accordance with the procedures stipulated in the relevant statutes and the terms and conditions of this case, the Defendant maintained the supplementary service for about two years after the new date of issuance of the instant card, and notified the customers that the rate of accumulation was reduced at least six months prior to the date of the change, and thus, the Defendant’s change of the additional service is lawful.

2) Even though the terms and conditions subject to the duty to explain are important matters, if the customer knows the contents of the terms and conditions sufficiently, or if they are merely merely about the extent that the content of the terms and conditions already determined by the laws and regulations, it is not acknowledged that the business operator has the duty to explain such matters. The Plaintiff was well aware of the terms and conditions of the instant case, or could sufficiently anticipate them without any separate explanation, and the terms and conditions of the instant case are merely to the extent that the terms and conditions of the instant case are already determined by the Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus, the Defendant does not bear the duty to explain the terms and conditions of the instant case. In particular, as in the instant case, the Plaintiff is exempt from the Defendant’s duty to explain if it concluded a credit card membership

3) According to Article 24(1) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, a financial company or an electronic financial business entity shall, when entering into an electronic financial transaction contract with a user, deliver a copy of the terms and conditions in the manner determined by the Financial Services Commission, “only upon the user’s request,” and bear the duty to explain the terms and conditions. However, the Plaintiff did not request the Defendant to deliver a copy of the terms and conditions of this case or to explain the terms and conditions. Therefore, the Defendant does not

4) Even if the Defendant is required to provide the Plaintiff with additional connection, the Defendant is required to calculate the connection amount on the basis of the amount of each case’s use, not the Plaintiff’s total amount of use, and the amount less than KRW 1,500 is cut off, so the Defendant is obliged to provide connection with 19,479, as calculated accordingly.

3. Determination

A. The validity of the terms and conditions of this case

We examine whether the provision of this case constitutes “a clause that provides an enterpriser with an authority to unilaterally determine or change the content of performance without reasonable grounds,” or “a clause that is unreasonably unfavorable to customers.”

In light of the following circumstances that can be seen in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the mileage provision service constitutes additional benefits other than the grant of credit due to the use of credit card under the instant contract, and the need to be changed in relation to the partnership in the case of additional benefits, and the provision of the instant contract provides the duty of disclosure to the time of the change of additional benefits and the details of the change, and thus provides the data to determine the possibility of prediction of credit card holders and the maintenance of membership status, it cannot be said that the contents of the instant provision constitute unfair terms and conditions under Articles 10 subparag. 1 and 6(2)1 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, and thus, cannot be deemed null and void.

B. Whether the duty of explanation is violated

1) Legal principles

In principle, a business entity under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions must explain the important contents of terms and conditions so that customers can understand them. "Important contents" refers to matters that may directly affect customers in determining whether to conclude a contract or to pay prices in light of social norms, and it shall not be uniformly made as to what constitutes an important contents among the terms and conditions provisions, and individual circumstances shall be considered in specific cases (see Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1328, Dec. 16, 2008). Even if the important matters of terms and conditions subject to the duty to explain are the important matters of the terms and conditions, if the customer or his/her agent is sufficiently aware of the contents of the terms and conditions, or if the customer could have sufficiently anticipated without any separate explanation because they are common and common in trade (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da8044, May 27, 2010).

2) Relevant provisions

Article 24-2(1)1 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act and Article 24-2(2) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act provide that "a credit card company shall not provide sufficient information on goods of credit cards, or unreasonably infringe rights and interests of credit card holders, etc. by exaggeration or false explanation, etc., and shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 7-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act provides that "The detailed types and guidelines for prohibited acts under the above Article are as provided in [Attachment Table 1-3], and where the Financial Services Commission deems it necessary to apply to specific prohibited acts among the above prohibited acts, it may determine and publicly notify detailed guidelines for types and guidelines of the above prohibited acts." According to the above [Attachment Table 1-3], credit card companies provide that a credit card company shall not engage in any act of unfairly changing additional benefits provided in the use of credit cards, such as explaining differently or excessively unrefising matters related to the change.

In addition, Article 25 of the Regulations on Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business, which was enforced by the Financial Services Commission at the time of entering into the instant contract, does not reduce or change additional services at the time of withdrawal for at least one year after the new delivery of credit cards, etc., and provides that if notice is given by at least two means among the Internet homepage, credit card claim, mail letter, and e-mail at least six months prior to the date of change, it does not constitute prohibited acts under the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act and the Enforcement Decree of the

3) Whether it is subject to the duty to explain

The following circumstances are revealed in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3: (i) The card of this case is a card issued by the defendant in alliance with an airline by the defendant in addition to the service of the original function of the credit card; (ii) its name is "Foreign Exchange Spanish Card"; and (iii) the card of this case was announced as an important content of the criteria for the provision of mileage in accordance with the following circumstances: (i) the annual fee (95,000 won) reflecting the above basic annual fee (5,00 won) is higher than that of other credit cards; (iii) the standard for the provision of mileage is not the original function of the credit card, but the standard for the provision of mileage is not a part concerning the original function of the credit card, but it is reasonable to determine the terms and conditions of the contract of this case that the plaintiff, including the plaintiff, could unilaterally provide the service of this case beyond the main contents of the contract of this case; and (ii) the standard for the provision of mileage is determined as an important part of the terms and conditions of the contract of this case.

4) Whether the duty of explanation is exempted

A) First, we examine whether the Plaintiff was well aware of the terms and conditions of this case or could have sufficiently predicted them without any separate explanation.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 11, it may be recognized that credit card companies reduced discount benefits and additional services related to the credit card and that the Financial Supervisory Service reported several articles that the credit card company would regulate them. However, the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that, even if the members, including the Plaintiff, and the members who entered into the membership agreement on the credit card of this case, failed to explain the terms of the terms of the contract of this case, they could have easily known, or could have anticipated, that the criteria for providing additional services, including the criteria for providing mileage, can be easily modified under the terms of the contract of this case,

B) Next, it is deemed that the terms and conditions of this case were already stipulated by the laws and regulations, and it is only to the extent that they were refilled or neglected.

According to the above Paragraph 2, although the Specialized Credit Financial Business Supervision Regulations at the time of the contract of this case stipulate the same contents as the contract of this case, the above supervisory regulations are publicly announced to determine matters necessary for the enforcement of the part in charge of the Financial Services Commission in accordance with the delegation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the above supervisory regulations merely stipulate the procedures and methods to be complied with when changing additional services related to credit card, and do not stipulate that additional services may be changed, and the above supervisory regulations are not enacted for credit card holders as those related to the inspection and supervision of credit card companies by the Financial Services Commission. In full view of the fact that the defendant's assertion alone does not constitute a provision that the criteria for the provision of additional services can be easily changed pursuant to the provision of this case.

C) Next, in the event that the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract by accessing the Defendant’s website, it is deemed that the Defendant’s duty to explain is exempted.

According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 18 and 20, the provision of this case is posted on the Defendant’s website, and the Plaintiff’s subscription to the contract of this case to the Defendant by accessing the Defendant’s website around October 2012.

However, Article 3(3) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions provides, “The enterpriser shall explain the important contents of the terms and conditions so that customers can understand them: Provided, That this shall not apply where it is considerably difficult to explain them due to the nature of the contract.” Although there is no special restriction on the method of explaining the important contents of the terms and conditions, the above provision shall take measures to explain the terms and conditions in light of the process and method of conclusion, customer understanding possibility of the terms and conditions, degree of disadvantage to the customer. Therefore, in a case where the enterpriser enters into a contract for the supply of goods or services between the customer and the electronic transaction on the Internet on the premise that the terms and conditions are applied, barring special circumstances, such as where the enterpriser posts the terms and conditions through the Internet and enters into a contract for the supply of goods or services between the customer and the customer by means of electronic transaction on the premise that the terms and conditions are applied, it cannot be deemed that the obligation to explain the important contents of the terms and conditions is exempted (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da432359, Mar. 9, 1999999).

In light of the above legal principles and the purport of the entire argument, the following circumstances are revealed.

(1) Even if a transaction is conducted on the Internet, it is not difficult for the Defendant, who is a business entity, to explain the important contents verbally to the customer who applied for membership of a credit card, or to perform the duty to explain by specifying the important contents of the contract in such a way as to enable the customer to easily understand the important contents of the contract separately from the notice of the terms and conditions on the product explanation screen or on the screen for application

② Considering the protection of customers who have joined the instant contract by means other than the Internet and the equity in protecting Internet visitors, it is difficult to deem that the explanation of the terms and conditions is considerably difficult solely on the ground that the instant contract was entered into on the Internet.

In full view of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed exempted from the Defendant’s duty to explain the fact that the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract by accessing the Internet homepage by itself (On the other hand, according to the Defendant’s Internet homepage No. 18, the procedure for application to read and consent to the terms and conditions is underway, and on the screen of the application for the contract, the phrase “the Plaintiff shall apply for membership by receiving and consenting to the terms and conditions of his/her member,” etc., so there may be room to deem that the Defendant fulfilled the duty to explain. However, considering the purport that the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions separately prescribes the duty to explain important matters in addition to the duty to specify the terms and conditions, it can be deemed that the Defendant fulfilled the duty to explain the terms and conditions only by itself, and cannot be deemed as having fulfilled the duty to explain important matters (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da69053, Feb. 15, 2013)

D) Lastly, we examine whether the obligation to explain the terms of this case under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is exempted.

Article 24(1) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act provides, “A financial company or an electronic financial business entity shall specify terms and conditions in a contract for electronic financial transactions with the user, and upon the user’s request, deliver a copy of the terms and conditions in such manner as determined by the Financial Services Commission, and explain the contents of the terms and conditions to the user.” The above provision covers all of the terms and conditions, not an essential part of the terms and conditions, and provides for the customer who specifically requested that is not all the customer, who is not a customer, to deliver the terms and conditions only. The above provision provides for the entire obligation to deliver the terms and conditions at the time of electronic financial transactions separate from the duty to explain provided under

5) Sub-decisions

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant fulfilled the duty to explain the terms and conditions of this case (the Defendant could explain to the Plaintiff orally using telephone conversations so that he can understand the terms and conditions of this case). The Defendant cannot assert the terms and conditions of this case as the content of the contract pursuant to Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions. Ultimately, the Defendant is obliged to provide Gohap mileage calculated at the rate of 2 miles per 1,500 won per use as agreed at the time of the contract of this case.

(c) Methods of calculating mileage;

According to Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant's advertising "2.0 won per 1,500 Won (including the date and time)" as to the mileage service of this case can be acknowledged.

However, the following circumstances are revealed by the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 12, 14, and 19. The defendant submitted a product description to the Financial Supervisory Service around April 201, which is set aside on the basis of the amount of each item used for the mileage accumulation service of the card of this case, and submitted it to the Financial Supervisory Service on the basis of the amount less than 1,500 won. ② The contents of the product description are registered on the defendant's website and intended to enter into a membership contract for the card of this case. ③ The plaintiff joined the card of this case via the defendant's Internet homepage at the time of the contract of this case. ④ In light of the fact that the plaintiff did not raise any objection to the information about the mileage set forth by the defendant for more than one year after the conclusion of the contract of this case, it is reasonable to recognize that the plaintiff was aware of the amount of mileage set up on the basis of the total amount of KRW 1,500,000 as the basis of the plaintiff's assertion.

D. Sub-determination

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Eul evidence Nos. 13, 2013 through April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff is entitled to set aside 2.0 Cocks per 1,500 won on the basis of the amount of each case using the instant card from September 1, 2013 to April 30, 2014; however, if the Plaintiff’s amount of less than KRW 1,500 is cut off, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff is obliged to receive Austrias from the Defendant.

In addition, in this case, the Defendant, who is the debtor, is dissatisfied with the criteria for the provision of mileage with respect to the instant card from the prior date, and it is evident that it is impossible to expect voluntary implementation at the time the due date arrives. Therefore, the Plaintiff needs to claim in advance the connection mileage up to the expiration date of the instant card.

Therefore, the Defendant, who was not provided to the Plaintiff from September 1, 2013 to April 30, 2014, is obligated to provide Category 19,479, and from May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2018, which is the expiration date of the term of validity, with Category 1,500, calculated by the ratio of 2.0 days per credit card usage to 1,500,000 won (the amount shall be set aside as per case use, and the amount below 1,500 won shall be set aside).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] List: omitted

Judges Marain (Presiding Judge)