The legal nature and method of the notice of refusal of payment under Article 12 (2) of the Installment Transactions Act, which is made by the buyer to refuse the installment payment to the credit provider for the reason that the purchase contract between the seller and the buyer becomes invalid, cancelled, or cancelled in the so-called indirect installment contract which is in a three-dimensional relationship.

The purpose of Article 12(2) of the Installment Transactions Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is to ensure that the goods purchase contract and installment financing contract are closely dependent on the existence, implementation, and existence of installment transaction in installment transaction, it is against the principle of equity to compel the buyer to pay the installment only to the buyer who is the party to the installment transaction even though the goods purchase contract has been invalidated, cancelled, or cancelled and the installment financing contract has no obligation to pay the installment, so it is against the principle of equity to give the buyer the power to refuse the payment of installment to the credit provider for reasons of defense against the seller within the extent not contrary to the principle of good faith. In this regard, the notice of the intent to refuse the payment to the credit provider is not an effective requirement to determine the existence of the so-called indirect installment contract under Article 2(1)2 of the Installment Transactions Act, which is in relation to the credit provider, but it is not a credit provider in relation to the goods purchase contract, but merely a requirement to oppose the buyer to refuse the payment of installment due to reasons arising from the purchase contract.

[1] Article 2 (1) 2 of the Installment Transactions Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Installment Transactions Act

Twelth Capital Co., Ltd.

Kim Young-young

Incheon District Court Decision 200Na68583 delivered on May 2, 2000

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,476,697 won with the amount of 1,414,667 won with the rate of 29% per annum from April 3, 1999 to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of all the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence 1 and 2:

A. On June 198, the Plaintiff entered into a installment financing contract with the non-party Mask Turkey Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party Turkey"), with the delegation of the buyer when the non-party company sells the learning materials, and entered into the installment financing contract with the Plaintiff as to the sales proceeds, the Plaintiff directly paid the installment financing funds to the non-party company on behalf of the buyer, while the Plaintiff would be paid monthly payments from the buyer.

B. In this regard, on September 9, 1998, the defendant purchased teaching materials equivalent to KRW 2,300,000 from the non-party company, through the non-party company, the defendant entered into an installment financing contract under which the plaintiff would pay 152,857 won each month from November 1, 1999 to December 14, 199 in equal installments the amount calculated by adding the interest to the principal of the installment.

C. Thereafter, the defendant paid only the installment to the plaintiff by January 1, 1999.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the payment after February 199, 199, which was not paid to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

3. The defendant's defense and its judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that since the above sales contract for the learning teaching materials concluded between the non-party company was cancelled, the defendant refused to pay the above installment in accordance with Article 12 of the Installment Transactions Act. Accordingly, the plaintiff argues that the above installment financing contract is a single installment transaction by combining the purchase contract of this case with the purchase contract of this case, so even if the purchase contract of this case was rescinded, as long as the contract for the purchase of this case which is only a part of it was rescinded, unless the contract for the purchase of this case was notified of separate rescission to the plaintiff, the contract for the purchase of this case was lawfully rescinded, and therefore, the defendant cannot refuse to pay the above installment to the plaintiff.

(b) Exercise of a purchaser's defense right;

According to Article 12(2) of the Installment Transactions Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a purchase contract between a seller and a credit provider becomes invalid, cancelled, or cancelled, the buyer of the installment contract whose installment price is not less than 100,000 won may refuse the payment of the installment after notifying the credit provider of his/her intention to refuse the payment of the installment. The purport of these provisions is to give the credit provider the notice of the intention to refuse the payment of the installment in cases where the purchase contract between the seller and the seller is invalid, cancelled, or cancelled, and the installment contract are closely dependent on the formation, implementation, and continued existence of the purchase contract, although the purchase contract and the installment contract are invalid, it is against the principle of equity to compel the buyer to pay the installment only to the buyer who is the party to the installment transaction, even though the contract does not have the obligation to pay the installment, and thus, it is reasonable to see that the buyer can refuse the payment of the installment within the extent that does not violate the principle of good faith.

On December 30, 198, the defendant agreed to cancel the purchase contract of this case between the non-party company and the non-party company on December 30, 1998, and returned the above learning materials. It is clear in the record that the defendant expressed his intent to refuse the payment of the plaintiff's claim for the installment of this case on the ground of the plaintiff's objection against the payment order of this case and the cancellation of the agreement on the purchase contract of this case through the pleading of this case. Thus, the notification of the intention to refuse payment to the plaintiff was made legally. Thus, even if the installment contract of this case remains valid separately from the purchase contract of this case, the defendant's assertion that the buyer's defense is exercised in installment transaction of this case as prescribed by the Installment Trade Act is justified.

C. Scope of exercise of defense rights

Furthermore, according to Article 12 (3) of the Installment Transactions Act, where a purchaser exercises the above defense right, the amount which the credit provider may refuse to pay to the credit provider shall be the remainder which the purchaser failed to pay to the credit provider until the claimant exercises the defense right. Thus, the defendant's defense right to defense against the plaintiff is consistent with the amount for which the plaintiff has not paid to the plaintiff at the time of exercising the buyer's defense right to the plaintiff through the instant installment litigation procedure. Thus, the defendant's defense right to defense against the plaintiff shall extend to the whole amount of the plaintiff's claim in this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court below that made the conclusion is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jong-hoon (Presiding Judge)