(a) The scope of joint and several sureties of credit card subscribers who have determined the monthly use limit;

(b) The case holding that it is reasonable in the principle of good faith to reduce the liability of joint and several sureties for the transaction portion to 50 percent after the bank neglected the follow-up management under the user agreement for the member who neglected the payment of the credit card usage

A. In concluding a credit card use contract, if the monthly credit card use limit of the member was set, it shall be deemed that the credit transaction limit was set in consideration of the member’s ability to pay the price based on his/her financial status, such as monthly income. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that a credit card joint and several surety guarantees the payment of the price within the credit transaction limit of the principal guarantor, unless otherwise specifically stipulated in the scope of liability for guarantee

B. The court below's decision that recognized the reduction of the liability of the joint and several sureties for the liability of the joint and several sureties after the re-transaction in case where a credit card subscriber member neglected payment due to the use of the card but did not take measures to cancel the contract at the bank, and the joint and several sureties did not notify the fact that the transaction was suspended and did not immediately allow the sureties to repay the overdue use price and continue the credit card transaction.

A. Article 429 of the Civil Act; Article 2 of the Civil Act; Article 429 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1626 Decided January 28, 1986

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na4529 delivered on June 14, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal 1 and 2.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party was a member of the National Card Member Bank handled by the non-party on July 14, 1981 and that the defendant agreed to assume joint and several liability with respect to the non-party's debt arising from the use of the above non-party's card; the non-party was paid 100,000 won in cash from the plaintiff bank on two occasions between June 23, 1982 through August 21 of the same year; and the non-party was paid 394,200 won in cash from the National Card Member Store in Seoul; the amount of 1,672,80 won in credit card for the July of the same year; the amount of 392,645 won in total from the August of the same year; and the non-party was paid 2,459,645 won in joint and several liability with respect to the non-party's credit card deposit within the extent of 1982,000 won in each of the above credit card deposit deposit.

On the other hand, in the conclusion of a credit card contract as in this case, if the monthly credit card use limit of the member was determined, it shall be deemed that the credit transaction limit was determined in consideration of the member's ability to pay the price based on his monthly income, etc.'s financial status. Thus, unless otherwise stipulated in the scope of guarantee liability, it is reasonable to view that the member of a credit card joint and several liability guarantee guarantees the payment of the purchase price within the credit transaction limit of the member. The credit card use exceeding the above credit transaction limit should not extend the scope of the guarantor's liability until it is regulated under the risk burden of the credit card issuer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1626, Jan. 28, 1986).

2. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 3.

As above, the court below acknowledged the defendant's guarantee liability within the monthly use limit of the non-party. The above non-party did not pay 356,886 won of credit card use price of the non-party as of September 27, 1981 and was suspended from the plaintiff bank pursuant to the follow-up Management of Credit Card Use Price Act, but paid 356,886 won of credit card use price of the non-party, but the non-party failed to notify the defendant as joint guarantor of the fact that the above suspension of transaction was cancelled, and that the plaintiff bank did not notify the defendant of the fact that the above suspension of transaction was not notified of the fact. In addition, the court below's decision that the contract can be terminated at the plaintiff bank, even if the plaintiff bank did not take measures to terminate the contract even though it did not notify the defendant of the fact that the above suspension of transaction was made without notifying the defendant as joint guarantor of the fact that the credit card use price of the non-party, which was a joint guarantor, was reduced by 50 million won of the above credit card use price of this case.

3. Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Justice)