Plaintiff 2 and one other (Law Firm Yuil, Attorneys Yoon Sung-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Jeong-hwan et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

September 9, 2005

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2002Gahap48219, 2003Gahap962, 2004Gahap38490 (Counterclaim) Decided December 10, 2004

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

A. The purport of the claim(the plaintiff submitted a document stating the amendment of the purport of the claim on September 5, 2005 when it came to the trial, but it is evident that the purport of the claim is to seek partial dismissal of the counterclaim in light of the content of the claim and the plaintiff's assertion. Thus, it is not deemed that the purport of the claim of the main claim is amended).

(1) It is confirmed that there does not exist any credit card payment obligations under each credit card service contract concluded on each contract date set forth in attached Table 1 No.4 between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”).

(2) The Defendants listed in attached Table 1 List 1 List 3 shall pay to the Plaintiffs listed in attached Table 1 List 1 Section 2 (3) the amount of money indicated in the same Schedule ? The following day after the service of the complaint in this case (the day after the cancellation date of each credit card service contract stated in attached Table 3) to May 30, 2003, and the amount of money by 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

B. Claim of the counterclaim

Each of the plaintiffs listed in Section B of Schedule II of the attached Table 2 shall pay to each of the defendants listed in Section B of the same Schedule â…………§ the respective amounts listed in Section B of the same Schedule â…, and with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of each counterclaim to the full payment date.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. It is so decided as per the above 1. A. (2). All of the defendants' counterclaim claims are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 1-2-10, 40, Gap evidence 2-10, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 9-1 through 10, Gap evidence 10-1 through 22, Eul evidence, Eul evidence 1-2-8, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 6-1 through 6-6, the purport of whole pleadings]

A. The Plaintiffs concluded a credit card service contract with the Defendants, which are credit card companies under the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act on each date of concluding the No. 1 List No. 4, with each credit card number stated in No. 1 List No. 4.

(1) In the event that the Plaintiffs, who received a credit card, intend to purchase goods or receive services in lump sum or in installment with a credit card, either by presenting the credit card and signing on the sales slip to the credit card merchant that entered into the merchant agreement with the Defendants (hereinafter “member store”) instead of paying the direct payment (hereinafter “credit purchase”).

See The Plaintiffs may receive a cash loan from the Defendants using an automatic cash payment instrument (hereinafter referred to as “cash service”).

Referencely, the plaintiffs shall pay to the defendants the price for the goods and services provided by the franchise store (in the case of installment purchase, an installment which adds a monthly installment commission as set by the defendants to the installment price for the goods), the loan received as cash services, and the payment on the agreed date for the payment of the card price in accordance with the agreement method as set by the defendants, such as the cash service fee of a certain amount as set by the defendants. If it is impossible to make payment on the agreed date

B. The Plaintiffs were respective minors at the time of concluding each credit card service contract as above, and their occupation, etc. are as follows.

(1) On October 21, 1982, Plaintiff 2 was the first credit card (credit card No. 1 omitted) issued from Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation on May 31, 2001, and was the age remaining 18 years and 7 months after the issuance of the first credit card (credit card No. 1 omitted) from Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation. Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation was the member of the number of employees maintaining the number of employees of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation. After that, until October 25, 2001, Plaintiff 2 was additionally issued three cards as shown in attached Table 1.

B. On October 15, 2001, Plaintiff 1, who was born on August 26, 1982, was the age of 19 years of age and 19 months of age at the time when he was issued the instant credit card from Defendant Lone Card Co., Ltd., and was receiving income by going outside English.

C. The Plaintiffs presented a credit card issued by the Defendants pursuant to each of the above credit card service agreements, and used a credit card to purchase goods and services from a chain store, borrow money from the Defendants through cash services, etc. to bear the Defendant’s liability for the payment of credit card bills, such as user fees, fees, late fees, etc. among them, are as stated in the No. 1 List of Attached Table. The amount repaid out of the credit card payment obligations is as stated in the same list of Paragraph 1.

D. Major details of Plaintiff 2’s use of credit cards

(1) A credit card (2 omitted) (related to the Defendant National Bank)

- Purchasing an amount equivalent to 43,500 won for alcoholic beverages and alcoholic beverages from Silri on December 27, 2001

- Purchasing an amount of 88,210 won for foodstuffs from the Chang-dong Agricultural Product Distribution Center, Inc. on January 4, 2002

- Purchasing amounting to KRW 750,000 for alcoholic beverages and alcoholic beverages from Silri on January 5, 200

She (No. 3 omitted) Credit cards (related to the Defendant bank)

- Purchase of a meal amounting to 32,800 won from Lee Jae-hun (mutually broves) on November 3, 2001

- Purchasing an amount equivalent to 17,600 won of alcoholic beverages from flag Co., Ltd. on November 3, 2001

- Purchasing an amount equivalent to 28,600 won of meals from Lee Jae-hun (mutual bromobs) on November 11, 2001

- Purchasing an amount equivalent to 18,000 won for alcoholic beverages and alcoholic beverages from Silri on December 23, 2001

- Purchasing an amount equivalent to 21,600 won of meals from Ansan (trade name, etc.) on December 28, 2001

- Purchasing an amount equivalent to 131,000 won for alcoholic beverages and alcoholic beverages from Silri on December 28, 2001

【Personal Card No. 1 omitted) Credit Card (related to the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, Inc.)

On June 30, 2001, purchase equivalent to KRW 29,400,00, for bathing goods, etc. from non-Esk Co., Ltd.

E. Main details of Defendant 1’s use of credit cards

- Purchasing an amount equivalent to 17,460 won, such as pins, from Korea Pava Co., Ltd. on October 19, 2001

- Purchasing an amount equivalent to 26,800 won, such as pins, from Korea Pava Co., Ltd. on October 19, 2001

- Purchasing amounting to KRW 14,800 on October 19, 2001 from KIS Information and Communications Company to KRW 14,800.

- Purchasing 721,200 won, such as clothes, cosmetics, handbags, etc. from a lot shopping company (locked stores) on October 20, 201

- Purchasing an amount equivalent to 98,000 won of clothing from Jambaon Co., Ltd. on October 20, 201

- Purchasing 50,00 won or more of clothing from scam (trade name) on October 21, 2001

- Purchasing food amounting to 26,00 won from the Central Central Central Central Republic of Korea on October 21, 2001

- Purchase of 28,00 won or more of clothing from Kim Jong-mick on October 21, 2001

- Purchasing amounting to KRW 185,000 from the NAFE Distribution Corporation on October 21, 2001

- Purchasing 53,00 won for panty panty cNA from the house (mutual CNA) on October 22, 2001

- Purchasing amounting to KRW 136,000 for cosmetics from the former name (mutual Embrye merck business) on October 22, 2001

- Purchasing amounting to KRW 14,800 on October 23, 2001 from KIS Information and Communications Co., Ltd. to KRW 14,800.

- 2001. 10. 23. 전동홍(상호 안동양반찜닭)으로부터 식사 20,000원 상당 구입

- Purchasing amounting to KRW 163,600 for clothing from the Hyundai Department Store (Ocheon Point) on November 20, 201

- Purchasing 19,800 won or more of clothing from Diononono Co., Ltd. on November 22, 2001

- Purchasing an amount equivalent to 181,500 won of hotel accommodation from the compactact filed with the corporation on November 22, 2001

- Purchasing amounting to KRW 89,000,00 of clothes from Park Young-Nam (mutually non-to-belllllllllllllla) on November 23, 2001

- Purchasing an amount equivalent to 25,600 won of express bus passes from the Korea Information and Communications Company on November 24, 2001

- Purchasing amounting to 65,600 won for meals from Echeon Pung-si, Inc. on November 24, 2001

- Purchasing amounting to 11,700 won, such as hamba, etc., from Mac Macro, Inc., Ltd. on November 27, 2001

- Purchasing amounting to KRW 14,800 on November 27, 2001 from KIS Information and Communications Co., Ltd. to KRW 14,800.

- Purchasing amounting to KRW 104,600 for clothing from the Hyundai Department Store (Ocheon Point) on November 27, 2001

- Purchasing an amount of 20,000 won for food beverages from Emydyd on November 28, 2001

- Purchasing clothes amounting to 128,000 won from a lot shopping corporation (locked store) on November 30, 2001

- Purchasing an amount of 30,00 won for meals from a fixed promotion (mutual Abane) on November 30, 201

- Purchasing 30,00 won equivalent to 30,000 won of clothes from 2.6 December 2001

- Purchasing equivalent to 27,220 won, such as Bain, from Korea Pain Ba Co., Ltd. on December 7, 2001

F. On August 7, 2002, the complaint of this case containing a declaration of intent to revoke each of the above credit card service contracts on the ground that the plaintiffs entered into each of the above credit card service contracts with their legal representatives under their minor status without the permission of their legal representatives was served respectively on Defendant EL Card Co., Ltd., and the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation Federation, and on August 8, 2002, Defendant EL Card Co., Ltd and Korea

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

The plaintiffs concluded each credit card use contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants without permission of their legal representatives. The above contract is revoked by the delivery of the complaint of this case. Under the above contract, the plaintiffs seek the return of the credit card use price and the credit card use price already paid to the defendants by unjust enrichment.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that each of the above credit card contracts is null and voidable legal acts. If the above contract is revoked, the Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment set-off against the Defendants’ unjust enrichment and equal amount derived from the above contract for the use of each of the credit card. Accordingly, the Defendants seek the return of unjust enrichment or the payment of the credit card price

3. Legal relations with respect to the use of credit cards.

(a) In cases of credit purchase:

(i)the legal relationship of credit purchase

㈎ 앞서 본 각 증거들에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 각 신용카드를 이용한 신용구매는 신용카드회원인 원고들과 신용카드발행인인 피고들 및 소외 가맹점들과 사이에 다음과 같은 방식으로 행하여지고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

(1) Any person who intends to become a credit card holder shall first enter into a credit card service contract with the issuer of the credit card and obtain a credit card issuance, and after obtaining the credit card, the holder of the credit card presents the credit card to the merchant and obtain the service by signing the same name as that on the credit card on the sales slip, and then purchase the goods or receive the service from the credit card holder, and pay to the issuer of the credit card the amount requested by the issuer under the above credit card service contract by the date of settlement

(2) An issuer of a credit card shall enter into a merchant agreement with stores, etc. that sell or provide goods or services, when a credit card holder presents a valid card pursuant to the above credit card service contract, a merchant shall sell or provide goods or services on credit, and receive, in advance, an amount calculated by deducting a certain percentage of fees set forth in the above contract from the face value from the issuer of the credit card by presenting the sales slip to the issuer of the credit card. In such cases, the issuer of the credit card shall be liable to pay the sales slip normally delivered by the credit card holder after obtaining approval of the transaction by means of a credit card inquiry, etc., with due care and checking whether

(3) A credit card issuer who has paid a credit card fee to a credit card merchant shall receive the fees agreed upon by the credit card holder, etc. by the payment date of each month agreed by the credit card holder, and in principle, a dispute on the goods and services purchased by the credit card holder shall be resolved between the credit card holder and the credit card merchant, and shall not oppose the credit card issuer as a defense to

㈏ 신용구매의 법적 성질

As such, a series of legal relations where a credit card holder purchases goods or receives services from a credit card merchant by using a credit card, once the credit card issuer makes payments on behalf of the credit card merchant, and then collects money including fees from the credit card holder after the payment takes place, shall be deemed to be one form of special credit loans combined with the obligation to purchase goods and pay within a certain period of time. However, the agreement between the credit card issuer and the credit card merchant that the credit card merchant shall pay the credit card use fee pursuant to the merchant agreement has the legal character of a kind of flexible assumption of obligation, and on the other hand, the effect of the purchase agreement between the credit card holder and the credit card merchant shall be determined independently between the parties in principle,

㈐ 신용구매의 취소

If a person who has been issued a credit card pursuant to a credit card use contract cancels the legal act on the ground that he is a minor, the credit card use contract becomes retroactively null and void, and accordingly, the credit card holders have no obligation such as credit card payments or fees to be borne by the issuer of the credit card based on the contract, and the credit card payments, etc. already paid are acquired without any legal cause in light of the part of the issuer of the credit card, and are obliged to return them to the credit card holders with interest added from the time when it is recognized as a malicious beneficiary in accordance with the legal principles of unjust enrichment.

However, an individual purchase agreement entered into between a credit card holder and the relevant member store, which causes a credit card issuer’s debt to the credit card merchant, shall continue to exist, regardless of the revocation of a credit card transaction agreement with the credit card issuer, even if the credit card holder is a minor, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the portion of the credit card issuer’s payment to the member store is valid as a repayment of the credit card use fee used by the relevant credit card holder, and thereby, the credit card holder is exempted from the obligation to pay goods and services to its member store without any legal cause, and also results in damage equivalent to the same amount to the relevant credit card issuer. Accordingly, the credit card holder is obligated to return it to the relevant credit card issuer in accordance

(b)for cash services:

(1) According to the above evidence, since the case where the plaintiffs received cash services from the credit card issuer using the credit card, unlike credit purchase, the existence of the credit card store is not premised on the existence of the credit card, the legal nature of the transaction is a kind of credit loan, i.e., monetary loan.

If a person who has been issued a credit card pursuant to the Luxembourg Credit Card service contract cancels the legal act on the ground that he is a minor, the credit card service contract becomes retroactively null and void, and accordingly there is no liability such as credit card payments or fees to be borne by the credit card holders by receiving cash services from the issuer of the credit card based on the contract. In light of the part of the issuer of the credit card, the credit card payments, etc. already paid are acquired without any legal cause, and are obliged to return them to the credit card holders with interest added from the time when it is recognized as a malicious beneficiary in accordance with the legal principles of unjust enrichment.

However, upon revocation of a credit card use contract, the credit card holder receives monetary loans from the issuer of the credit card without any legal ground and obtains profits equivalent to the same amount. This result in damage to the Defendants who actually disbursed the amount equivalent to the above amount. Therefore, the credit card holders are obligated to return the amount to the issuer of the credit card in accordance with the legal principles of unjust enrichment.

4. Requesting the confirmation of the existence of the obligation in the principal lawsuit;

A. According to the above facts, the plaintiffs were minors at the time of entering into each of the above credit cards service contracts, and on this ground, the duplicate, etc. of the complaint of this case containing the plaintiffs' declaration of revocation of each of the above credit cards service contracts was served on the defendants. Thus, barring any special circumstance, each of the above credit card service contracts concluded between the plaintiffs and the defendants was revoked.

B. Determination of the defendants' assertion

(1) The Defendants asserted that, in the case of a credit purchase arising from the legal relations between a credit card company, credit card holder, and three member stores, a credit card use agreement itself does not have a specific credit relationship between the credit card company and the member and a specific credit and debt relationship between the credit card company and the member to conduct an individual transaction with the credit card company, and that, as a credit card company, a credit card company merely has the status of taking over a credit claim against the member or acquiring a credit to the member store concurrently with the credit card company, it is merely an individual transaction between the Plaintiffs and the member stores, and thus, the credit card use agreement cannot be revoked.

As seen earlier, the credit card transaction relationship between the credit card holder and the credit card issuer is a separate personal legal relationship from the credit purchase of goods and services provided by a member store or the merchant agreement between a member store and the credit card issuer. Thus, the credit card holder may cancel the credit card transaction agreement between the credit card issuer and the credit card issuer regardless of the cancellation of an individual transaction with respect to a member store. Thus, the aforementioned assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

B. The Defendants asserted that, in light of the fact that some of the plaintiffs are employees with regular income and the use of credit cards is merely a temporary postponement of payment, and that the plaintiffs received goods or services or received cash services most of the small amount of transactions, the legal representative's permission for the above small amount transactions was actually granted. Thus, the use of credit cards in this case is a voluntary disposal of property permitted under Article 6 of the Civil Act, and thus, cannot be revoked.

However, in light of the fact that there is no evidence to prove that the legal representative of the plaintiffs permitted the disposal of the property by setting the scope of the property in relation to the transaction of credit card in this case, and that the amount and frequency of the goods purchased or the services provided by the plaintiffs using each credit card in this case are not significant, the legal representative of the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have permitted the use of credit card solely on the ground that some of the plaintiffs are occupation, and therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

Article 24 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Supervision Regulations (Public Notice No. 2001-48 of July 19, 2001) prepared to determine matters necessary for matters under the jurisdiction of the Financial Supervisory Commission among the matters related to the operation, inspection, and supervision of specialized credit financial business companies, etc. as prescribed by the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act and the Act on the Establishment, etc. of Financial Supervisory Organizations, etc., the Defendants stated that “credit card companies shall issue credit cards to each person who has certain income and certain property at least 18 years old as of the date of application in accordance with the criteria for their issuance.” Thus, they asserted that the credit card use contract of this case cannot be cancelled to adults.

On the other hand, Article 24 of the above Regulation on Supervision of Specialized Credit Financial Business is limited to the preparation of the minimum standard for issuing credit cards to credit card holders in order to regulate the issuance of improper credit cards by credit card companies, and it cannot be viewed as a provision for the legal fiction of minors aged 18 years or older as adult in concluding a contract for the use of credit cards. Therefore, in case of minors, a contract for the use of credit cards must be subject to the consent of their legal representatives, and a contract for the use of credit cards concluded without the consent of their legal representatives can be revoked.

Applicant The Defendants asserted that the revocation of a credit card use contract is contrary to the good faith principle solely on the ground that the Plaintiffs were minors under the Civil Act when entering into the instant credit card use contract with the Defendants and were working in the workplace as economic agents. However, in light of the purport of the Civil Act that allows the revocation of a legal act by a minor without the legal representative’s consent to protect minors, the Defendants’ assertion alone does not violate the good faith principle, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, since the credit card use contract of this case between the plaintiffs and the defendants was revoked, the credit card use contract of this case between the plaintiffs and the defendants does not exist any longer because the credit card use contract of this case under the credit card use contract of this case which is the basis of its occurrence is revoked on each contract date set forth in No. 1.

5. Claim for return of unjust enrichment in the principal lawsuit and counterclaim;

A. Claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in the principal lawsuit

As seen earlier, as long as the credit card use contract of this case was revoked between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the defendants obtained without any legal ground the profits equivalent to the card price and the fee paid by the plaintiffs, and thereby inflicted damages equivalent to the same amount on the plaintiffs. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendants are obligated to return the claim amount stated in attached Table 1 â……, to the plaintiffs who filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment in the principal lawsuit.

B. The defendants' assertion and counterclaim

(1) The Defendants asserted that the card price paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants was paid by the Plaintiffs even though they knew that they could cancel the credit card use contract, and thus, they were paid by the Plaintiffs with knowledge of the fact that they were not liable, or even if they were paid by mistake, it was paid by the Plaintiffs in relation to the amount of credit card use used by the Plaintiffs. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it as to the fact that the Plaintiffs knew that they did not have an obligation at the time of paying the credit card use fee, and it cannot be deemed that the payment was in conformity with the concept of intent, and therefore,

The Defendants asserted that the revocation of the credit card use contract and the claim for return of unjust enrichment are contrary to the principle of good faith on the ground that they are minors under the Civil Act. However, as seen earlier, in light of the fact that the legal representative’s consent can be revoked, and that it is a provision for protecting minors without complete mental capacity, the above circumstance alone does not lead to the revocation of the credit card use contract and the claim for return of unjust enrichment accordingly are contrary to the principle of good faith. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit, on the grounds that the revocation of the credit card use contract and the claim for return of unjust enrichment are contrary to the principle of good faith.

【Offset Claim and Counterclaim Claim

㈎ 피고들은, 신용카드 이용계약이 취소됨으로써 원고들 역시 가맹점에 대하여 면제받은 물품대금이나 현금서비스를 통하여 피고들로부터 대여받은 금전을 법률상 원인 없이 취득하였으므로, 원고들도 피고들에 대하여 위 물품대금이나 차용금 상당액을 부당이득금으로서 반환하여야 할 의무가 있다고 하면서, 원고들의 피고들에 대한 위 부당이득금반환채권과 피고들의 원고들에 대한 부당이득반환채권을 그 대등액에서 상계함과 아울러, 반소로써 상계 후 남은 원고들의 피고들에 대한 대금채무 또는 부당이득금반환채무의 이행을 구한다고 주장한다.

The plaintiffs, without any legal ground, are exempted from the defendants' obligations for goods and service payment that the defendants paid on behalf of the chain store, or obtain profits equivalent to the same amount (the amount stated in the No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 No. 1) from the defendants with cash services. Accordingly, the defendants suffered losses from the defendants who actually paid the above amount. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are obligated to return to the defendants with interest added to the above goods, service payment, and cash services within the scope of the existing profits.

㈏ 부당이득의 내용에 관한 원고들의 주장에 관한 판단

The plaintiffs asserts that the profit acquired unfairly in the case of credit purchase is the goods and services themselves purchased from the franchise store, not the goods and service payment obligations that are exempted from the franchise store.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, insofar as the goods and service transaction contract between the plaintiffs and the franchise store have not been revoked, the transaction relation between the above parties is still valid, and therefore, the goods and the service provided by the plaintiffs are obtained through the valid transaction relation and it is difficult to view it as the profit obtained unfairly. However, since it is reasonable to view that the defendants paid to the franchise store in subrogation of the plaintiffs the price for the goods and the service provided in the above transaction relation, thereby releasing the plaintiffs from the payment of the price for the goods and the service provided by subrogation of the plaintiffs, and eventually, the profits the plaintiffs acquired as a result is exempted from the payment for the goods

㈐ 원고들의 개별 매매계약 취소 주장에 관한 판단

In addition, as to the individual sales contract, etc. with each member store listed in the above 1.D. and E., the plaintiffs sent to each member store a content-certified mail containing the plaintiffs' declaration of intent that the contract was cancelled on the grounds that the plaintiffs were minors at the time of signing the contract, and each of the above legal acts was cancelled. Accordingly, the defendants paid the purchase price, etc. to each member store, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiffs obtained profits from being exempt from the obligation to pay the purchase price, etc. without any legal grounds.

Therefore, the main purpose of Article 5 of the Civil Act is to protect minor's property without the consent of his/her legal representative's ability to determine whether a legal act can be cancelled on the ground that a minor engaged in economic activities conducted in a relatively small scale transaction, such as purchase of essential life or use of restaurant, under the age of 18 or older, and is to protect minor's property without the consent of his/her legal representative. This can be said to be a system emphasizing minor's protection rather than the safety of the transaction or the general interest of the society (see, e.g., the above 4. B., based on the legislative intent of the Civil Act). However, it is difficult for minor to cancel credit card use contract that is highly likely to cause severe property loss to minor, and it is also difficult for minor to use minor's daily life or is to lower the age of 20 years because of changes in the age of ordinary people, and thus, it can be said that there is a relatively small-scale legal act that goes beyond the age of 18 or 19 years in consideration of individual legal acts.

In light of the above facts, the plaintiffs were 18 years of age or 19 years of age at the time of individual sales contract, etc. with each of the member stores listed in the above 1.D. (e) and paragraph (5) above, and were engaged in economic activities at the age near the majority and 19 years of age. The sales contract, etc. with each of the above member stores was a relatively small-scale transaction, such as purchase of daily necessities, restaurant, etc., and each of the individual transactions did not exceed monthly revenues of the plaintiffs. Since it is difficult to deem that each of the individual transactions suffered property loss or losses, it is difficult to deem that each of the individual transactions did not have property loss, and it is difficult or difficult to recover its original status after the cancellation of each individual transaction after each of the transaction items, etc., the plaintiffs' cancellation of individual sales contract with each of the member stores listed in the above 1. D. (e) cannot be permitted as violating the good faith principle. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion that the above plaintiffs' sales contract, etc. was cancelled is without merit, and each of the above 1. 1.

㈑ 한편, 원고들이 얻은 이익은, 신용구매의 경우나 현금서비스의 경우 모두 금전상의 이득으로서 특별한 사정이 없는 한 현존하는 것으로 추정된다 할 것이므로, 원고들은 피고들에게 별지 제1목록 제⑦항 중 이용대금란 기재 각 금원 및 이에 대하여 원고들이 해당 신용카드 이용계약을 취소함으로써 악의의 수익자로 인정된 때로부터의 이자를 덧붙여 반환하여야 할 것이다.

그렇다면, 피고들이 위 양 부당이득반환채권을 그 대등액에서 상계함과 아울러 상계 후 원고들의 피고들에 대한 나머지 부당이득금반환채무의 이행을 구하는 의사표시가 담긴 이 사건 각 반소장 부본이 2003. 2. 19. 원고 1에게, 2004. 5. 31. 원고 2에게 각 송달된 사실은 기록상 분명하므로, 원고들의 피고들에 대한 별지 제1목록 제⑥항 기재 각 본소 청구금액 상당의 부당이득반환채권은 피고들의 원고들에 대한 별지 제1목록 제⑦항 중 이용대금란 기재 각 금원 상당의 부당이득반환채권과 대등액에서 상계로 소멸하였다고 할 것이고, 그 결과 피고들이 위 상계 후 원고들에게 반환하여야 할 나머지 부당이득금의 수액은 별지 제1목록 제⑩항 기재 각 금원이 되고, 원고들이 피고들에게 반환하여야 할 부당이득금의 수액은 별지 제1목록 제⑪항 기재 각 금원이 된다.

· Sub-determination

따라서, 반소 부당이득반환청구 등에 관하여, 별지 제2목록 제②항 기재 각 원고들은 같은 목록 제③항 기재 각 피고들에게 별지 제2목록 제⑦항 기재 각 금원(=별지 제1목록 제⑪항 기재 각 금원) 및 이에 대하여 위 피고들이 구하는 바에 따라 반소장 또는 청구취지 확장서 송달일 다음날인 별지 제2목록 제⑧항 기재 각 지연손해금 기산일부터 완제일까지 소송촉진등에관한특례법 소정의 연 20%의 비율에 의한 지연손해금을 각 지급할 의무가 있다.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the plaintiffs' claims for the confirmation of existence of the obligations against the defendants and each of the counter-claims against the defendants against the defendants shall be accepted for each reason, and each of the remaining claims against the defendants listed in attached Table 1 List 1 List 3 against the defendants shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all of the plaintiffs.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Ansan-do (Presiding Judge)