Plaintiff (Law Firm Gender Rate, Attorneys Yellow-ray et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

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

September 29, 2016

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Gahap10764 Decided February 3, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be borne by each person;

1. Purport of claim

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.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation is dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the judgment against the Plaintiff corresponding to the No. 3,954, which orders the provision of additional services, shall be revoked. The Defendant will provide the Plaintiff with the mileage calculated by the ratio of two days per 1,500 won per credit card use as stated in the attached Table from May 1, 2015 to April 30, 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 business part of the foreign exchange bank established by the foreign exchange card company on September 1, 2014, and transferred the rights and obligations with respect to the credit card business part of the foreign exchange bank. The foreign exchange card company changed its trade name to the Defendant on December 1, 2014; hereinafter “Defendant” regardless of the aforementioned division and trade name change, regardless of the aforementioned division and trade name, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Defendant’s foreign exchange Spanish Social Card (hereinafter “instant card”). The annual fee was KRW 100,000 (basic membership fee was KRW 5,00,000, annual membership fee was KRW 95,000, and KRW 200,000,000). In addition to the original function of the credit card, the Plaintiff provided the Plaintiff’s claim for additional 20,000,000 won per 20,000.

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 provided the connection mileage changed from September 1, 2013 to April 30, 2015. The Plaintiff was provided with the connection mileage 210,897, according to the changed rate of accumulation from the Defendant to April 30, 2015.

C. On December 13, 2010, the Defendant modified the Defendant’s standard contractual terms and conditions on the Defendant’s personal member, and newly established Article 14(3) of the same Act that read, “Additional Services, such as points and discount benefits, provided at the time of the use of a credit card, shall be maintained without reduction or abolition for at least one year after the new issuance of the credit card, and when the change of additional Services is made, two or more of the website, usage price statement, mail, e-mail (E-M AIL) prior to the six months prior to the date of the change, etc. of the reasons for change, details of the change, etc., shall be notified of the reasons for change, details of use, mail, e-mail (E-M AIL). However, this does not apply to any inevitable change due to the unilateral change of contractual alliance conditions, bankruptcy, natural disaster, sudden change of financial environment, credit card company’s business crisis

[Ground of 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

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

1) The Defendant maintained the additional service for about two years after the new issuance of the instant card in accordance with the procedures set out in the separate sheet and the terms and conditions of this case, and notified the customers that the rate of accumulation was reduced at least six months before the date of the change. Thus, the Defendant’s change of the additional service is lawful.

2) Even though the terms and conditions subject to the duty of explanation are important matters, if the customer knows the contents of the terms and conditions in question sufficiently, or if the contents of the terms and conditions already known to, or are merely the extent of refusing, or delaying, those matters stipulated by the laws and regulations, it does not necessarily mean that the business operator has the duty of explanation even about such matters. The Plaintiff was able to know the terms and conditions of the instant case, or sufficiently anticipate them without any separate explanation, and the terms and conditions of the instant case are merely the extent of refusing, or delaying, those matters already stipulated by the laws and regulations pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulations on Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business, which are externally binding laws and regulations, and thus, the Defendant does not separately bear the duty of explanation on the terms and conditions of the instant case. In particular, the Defendant is exempt from the duty of explanation of

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 is not liable

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. Whether the terms and conditions of this case are invalid

We examine whether the terms and conditions of this case fall under “a clause that grants a business operator an authority to unilaterally determine or change the content of the performance without reasonable grounds” or “an unreasonably unfavorable clause to a customer”.

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 provision 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 for the duty to notify the credit card holders of the time of the change of additional benefits and the details of the change, thereby enhancing the predictability of credit card holders and providing data to determine whether to maintain membership status, the provision of the instant contract cannot be deemed null and void as it constitutes an unfair terms and conditions under Articles 10 subparag. 1 and 6(2) subparag. 1 of the Act.

B. Whether the Clause of this case violated the duty to explain

1) Relevant legal principles

A business entity under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions shall explain the important contents of terms and conditions so that customers can understand them, and “important contents” subject to the duty to explain refers to matters directly affecting the conclusion of a contract or the determination of prices in light of social norms, and it cannot be uniformly concluded as to what constitutes an important contents in terms of the terms and conditions, and individual circumstances should be considered in specific cases (see Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1328, Dec. 16, 2008). Even if the terms and conditions subject to the duty to explain are important matters of the terms and conditions, if the customer or his agent knows the contents of the terms and conditions sufficiently or are common in transactions, so it cannot be said that the customer has an obligation to explain such matters without any separate explanation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da8044, May 27, 2010). Furthermore, Article 3(3) of the Terms and Conditions Regulation Act provides that a business entity is clearly exempt from the duty to explain terms and conditions in light of the terms and conditions in question.

2) Relevant provisions

Article 24-2(1)1 and (2) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act provide that "a credit card company shall not engage in any act of unreasonably infringing on the rights and interests of credit card holders, etc. by failing to provide sufficient information on credit card products, by exaggerated or false explanation, etc." Article 7-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act provides that detailed types of and guidelines for prohibited acts under the aforesaid Article shall be as specified in attached Table 1-3, while "the Financial Services Commission may determine and publicly notify detailed guidelines for types of and guidelines for such prohibited acts where deemed necessary to apply to specific prohibited acts among the above prohibited acts." According to the foregoing attached Table 1-3, a credit card company provides that a credit card company shall not engage in any act of unfairly changing additional benefits provided in the use of a credit card, by explaining or excessively explaining the matters related to the additional benefits provided in the use of the credit card and the changes thereof, and by unfairly changing additional benefits provided in the use of a credit card.

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) the name of the card is "Foreign Exchange Spanish Card" as it provides additional service of accumulating Spanishage according to the above alliance; and (iii) the card of this case was advertised as important contents of the criteria for the provision of mileage at the time of advertising the card of this case with "2.0 Spanish oil reserve (including the date, time, etc.)" and it was agreed that the annual fee (95,000 won) reflecting the above basic annual fee (5,00 won) is higher than that of other credit cards; and (iii) the standard for provision of mileage is not about 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, can unilaterally provide the service of this case beyond the main contents of the contract of this case; (iv).

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 statements in Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 11, prior to the issuance of the credit card in this case, the credit card company reduced the benefits and additional services related to the credit card, and accordingly, the credit card reduction problem was reported through the media several times, and the article that the Financial Supervisory Service regulated this. However, the above recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that even if the members, including the plaintiff, were not informed of the change that the criteria for the provision of additional services, including the criteria for the provision of mileage, could have been easily changed under the terms of the contract in this case, or could have anticipated it without any separate explanation, even if they were not informed of the terms of the terms of the contract in this case. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

B) Next, we examine whether the provision of this case is merely a mere mere mere mere mere possibility of repeating or delaying what was prescribed by the law and regulations.

(1) As seen earlier, Article 25 of the Regulations on the Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business provides the same contents as Article 25 of the Regulations on the Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business, and comprehensively considering the facts acknowledged earlier and the overall purport of the arguments, there is room to deem that Article 25 of the Regulations on the Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business has the effect of external binding laws combined with the Specialized Credit Financial Business

(1) The purpose of the Regulations on Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business is to provide for matters necessary for the enforcement of matters under the jurisdiction of the Financial Services Commission among matters related to the operation, inspection, and supervision of specialized credit financial business companies, etc. prescribed by the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Act on the Establishment, etc. of Financial Services Commission, the Enforcement Decree of the Financial Services Commission, the Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry, and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Article 1). Accordingly, the main contents of the Regulations on Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business include the registration, etc. of credit card companies (Chapter 2), business restrictions (Chapter 3), sound management guidance (Chapter 4), sound credit transaction guidance (Chapter 5), the protection and maintenance of customers (Chapter 6), foreign exchange soundness supervision (Chapter 7), reporting, etc. (Chapter 8). Such

② However, Article 24-2 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act and Article 7-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate that the Financial Services Commission shall specifically delegate the detailed details of the unfair alteration of value-added services equivalent to prohibited acts of credit card companies, and accordingly, Article 25(1) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Supervision Regulations provides that the delegation does not constitute “an act of unreasonably changing additional benefits provided at the time of the use of credit card, etc.”

③ In order for a credit card company to change additional services of the credit card company issued by it, it shall meet the requirements and procedures prescribed in Article 25 of the Regulations on Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business, and otherwise, if not, it is prohibited to change additional services of the credit card company and thus, it is subject to restriction on freedom of business. On the other hand, consumers using the credit card are protected by restrictions on business activities related to change of additional services by the credit card company under Article 25 of the Regulations on Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business. Accordingly, Article 25 of the Regulations on Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business directly affects the rights and obligations of the credit card company by restricting specific business activities related to change of additional

(2) However, even if there is room for interpreting Article 25 of the Regulations on Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business to be effective as a law, in light of the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively taking into account the facts acknowledged earlier and the overall purport of the arguments, it cannot be deemed that the provision of this case is too excessive to the extent to which the provision of this case was already stipulated in the laws and regulations on the ground of the establishment of Article 25 of the Regulations on

① The duty to explain under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions is acknowledged to prevent a contractor from causing unexpected disadvantages because the important contents of the terms and conditions are the contents of a contract, while the contractor is unaware of the terms and conditions unilaterally prepared by the business operator, and even if they are important matters of the terms and conditions, the grounds for exempting the duty to explain about the matters that have already been determined by the Acts and subordinate statutes are open to the public. In addition, since the Acts and subordinate statutes have neutrality, it can be found that the contractor is not specially disadvantageous.

② Article 25 of the Regulations on Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business may be deemed to have the effect of external binding regulations in combination with the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act and its Enforcement Decree. However, most of the regulations on supervision of specialized credit financial business except the above provisions are stipulated in the form of public notice, which is an administrative rule. It is difficult to view that consumers have no content of the regulations on the supervision of specialized credit financial business because they are technical regulations under the administrative rules that provide matters necessary for the supervision of credit card companies

③ Article 25 of the Regulations on Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business is a provision that a credit card company takes as a principal of a credit card company, and a credit card company must meet certain requirements and procedures in order to change its additional services issued by it, and if not, it is prohibited to change its additional services and directly restrict its freedom of business. On the other hand, consumers using a credit card are entitled to protect their rights due to restrictions on business activities related to change of additional services by credit card companies under Article 25 of the Regulations on Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business. Accordingly, Article 25 of the Regulations on Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business should not be interpreted as a way that unfairly reduces the rights of consumers protected by the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act and its Enforcement Decree and unfairly

④ Article 24-2(1) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act prohibits a credit card company from performing an act that is likely to undermine consumer protection purpose and sound business order (Article 24-2(1) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act). “The act of failing to provide sufficient information on goods of a credit card or unfairly infringing rights and interests of credit card holders, etc. by making an exaggerated or false explanation, etc.” The possibility of changing additional services constitutes information on goods of a credit card. Meanwhile, the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act imposes sufficient explanation on a credit card company as an obligation of a credit card company. Meanwhile, Article 7-3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, which is delegated with regard to prohibited acts under Article 24-2 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, provides [Attachment 1-3] with detailed types of prohibited acts, and provides explanation or explanation on the change of additional services.”

Article 25 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Supervision Regulations provides the minimum requirements and procedures for the modification of additional services delegated by the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act and its Enforcement Decree, and it cannot be deemed that only the same contents are prescribed in the terms and conditions, and the effect that the reduction of additional services can be generally recognized as being incorporated into the terms and conditions of the contract even if there is no explanation thereon.

In other words, the purport of Article 25 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Supervision Regulations is to allow a credit card company to change additional services only under certain conditions, and to protect credit card holders who are consumers by imposing the duty of disclosure of the time of change and change of additional services, and only the minimum requirements and procedures for this purpose. If it is interpreted that the provision of this case is exempted from the duty of explanation of the provision of this case on the ground that Article 25 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Supervision Regulations provides the same contents as that of Article 25 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Supervision Regulations, a credit card company is allowed to enter into a credit card membership agreement with the credit card company without explaining the possibility of change of additional services to the credit card holders and to change the additional services without any restriction, which would result in unexpected disadvantages for consumers. Accordingly, interpreting this provision as above is unreasonable in light of the purport of the above provision.

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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da43432359, Mar.

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 (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 contract, the phrase “to apply for membership by receiving and consenting to the terms and conditions of his/her member,” etc., it may be deemed that the Defendant fulfilled the duty to explain. However, considering the purport of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions separately stipulating the duty to explain important matters in addition to the duty to specify the terms and conditions, it can only be deemed that the Defendant fulfilled the duty to explain the terms and conditions, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant fulfilled the duty to explain important matters (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da69053, Feb. 15, 2013). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant fulfilled the duty to explain cannot be accepted.

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 date and time)" with respect to the mileage service of this case can be recognized.

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 conclusion 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 in the above criteria even if it was provided by the defendant for one year or more after the conclusion of the contract of this case, it is reasonable to recognize that the plaintiff was not aware of the total amount of mileage set up on the basis of the total amount of mileage set up, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the contract of this case's.

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 of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate with this conclusion, the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice) Kim Tae-ho et al.