Where a credit card issuing bank does not terminate a credit card transaction contract even though the credit standing of the credit card holder was extremely poor, the guarantor's liability to the card holder.

In a case where a credit card holder was subjected to a measure of suspension of transaction from the credit card issuing bank on the basis of the payment body and the upper limit of use, but the payment in arrears was made after the measure was cancelled, and the credit conditions such as excessive purchase of goods, etc. exceeds the limit of use again after the measure was cancelled, and the credit card issuing bank did not terminate a credit card transaction agreement for a considerable period of time and did not inform the guarantor of such reason, if the credit card issuing bank allowed the credit transaction continuously, and caused the guarantor to lose the opportunity to exercise the right of termination of the credit guarantee contract, it is reasonable to impose liability on the guarantor under the principle of good faith or fairness

Article 428 of the Civil Act

Korean Bank, Inc.

Kim Dong-dong et al.

Seoul District Court Branch of Seoul District Court (87Gahap2403)

1. Of the parts against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part ordering the payment of 1,064,520 won and the amount equivalent to 19% per annum from August 28, 1987 to the date of full payment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the minimum part is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed, respectively.

3. Three-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiff and the remainder are assessed against the defendant.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 17,48,315 out of the above amount of KRW 55,69,865 and the above amount of KRW 17,488,315 from August 28, 1987; KRW 31,83,910 from September 28 of the same year; and KRW 6,205,00 from October 28 of the same year to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

The part against the plaintiff in the first instance judgment shall be revoked.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,069,257 out of the said amount of KRW 38,519,768 and the said amount of KRW 10,069,257 from August 28, 1987; and KRW 25,228,571 from September 28, 1987 to the date of full payment of KRW 3,102,50 from October 28 to the date of full payment of KRW 19 percent per annum.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances, and a provisional execution on the part of payment of the above money shall be declared.

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

In full view of the statement of No. 1-1 (National Card Issuance Application) and the purport of oral argument on May 14, 1986, Non-party 1, which are recognized as genuine by testimony of the first instance trial witness Gap, shall subscribe to the plaintiff's special card on May 14, 1986, and shall pay to the plaintiff the cash leased from the plaintiff and the credit card merchant designated by the plaintiff on credit for 1-6 months until the 27th day of the following month. If the payment is in arrears, the defendants shall pay the plaintiff the overdue interest rate of 1-6 days from the following day to the 1-6th day of the payment (hereinafter, this case's credit card transaction contract), the defendants shall bear joint and several liability for the future obligations arising from the non-party 1's credit card use, and the defendant shall have signed and sealed the non-party 1 to the 97th day of the above statement on May 14, 1986, and shall have no other statement of No. 171-67 evidence purchase (this statement). 977).

On August 21, 1986, the Plaintiff jointly and severally sought payment of the above money to the Defendants. The Defendants asserted that Nonparty 1 was subject to credit card transaction in excess of the payment body and credit limit, and that the credit card transaction contract in this case was terminated between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1. Accordingly, they did not have any guarantee liability against the Defendants for the obligations arising from the use of the credit card in this case. However, the Defendants asserted that Nonparty 1 was subject to the suspension of the use of the credit card in this case at the temporary intervals of the Defendants, but Nonparty 1 was paid the overdue payment by Nonparty 1 around May 1987, the fact that the suspension of the above transaction was cancelled due to Nonparty 1’s repayment of the overdue payment, although there was no dispute between the parties, it cannot be deemed that the credit card transaction contract in this case should be terminated without fail to be proved that the credit card transaction in this case was terminated

In addition, in the event that the plaintiff neglected to pay the price to the non-party 1, the defendants permitted credit transactions without having to terminate the credit card transaction agreement of this case, and the plaintiff did not inform the defendants of the right to terminate the contract of this case. Thus, the defendants asserted that the non-party 1 was not responsible for the termination of the contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff suspended the non-party 1's credit card transaction of this case as of August 21, 1986, but did not notify the defendants of the fact that the plaintiff did not notify the above suspension of the transaction of the fact, and there is no dispute between the parties, and according to the evidence No. 1-2 (Membership) of the non-party 1 who did not dispute the establishment of the contract of this case, the plaintiff could terminate the contract, but according to the witness testimony of both parties, it is necessary to cancel the contract of this case, and it is not necessary for the plaintiff to cancel the contract of this case to the non-party 1, which is the non-party 1 to the above non-party 1's credit card sales agreement.

Furthermore, in full view of Nonparty 1’s testimony about the scope of liability of the Defendants, the monthly card use limit of KRW 10,00,00 for non-party 1’s subscription to the credit card transaction contract of this case, KRW 5,00,00 for installment purchase, KRW 50,00 for cash loan, KRW 50,00 for non-party 1’s testimony, and there is no counter-proof without reliance on the above portion of non-party 1’s testimony. Thus, according to the above facts, if a joint and several surety was used for the above credit card transaction of KRW 30,70, KRW 970, KRW 700 for total amount of KRW 9, KRW 700 for total amount of KRW 80, KRW 700 for total amount of KRW 9, KRW 700 for total amount of KRW 9, KRW 700 for total amount of KRW 700, KRW 800 for total amount of money purchase, KRW 7005,000 for total amount of KRW 97.

The Defendants asserted that Nonparty 1 paid KRW 1,064,520 out of the instant credit card use amount. Thus, if Nonparty 1 collected the testimony of both the witnesses as stated in the evidence No. 10-2 (each receipt) of No. 10,064,520 out of the instant credit card use amount, it can be recognized that Nonparty 1 paid KRW 702,930 on October 20, 1987 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 1,064,520 on the sum of KRW 365,590 on October 21, 21, and KRW 1,064,520 on the instant credit card use amount. Thus, the Defendants’ above assertion is reasonable and should be reduced within the scope of the said payment. Accordingly, it is reasonable to appropriate to cover the Defendant’s obligations within the limit of the said payment in accordance with the order of statutory appropriation for payment in the instant credit card use amount.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 16,12,377 won (17,176,897 won-1,064,520 won) and the amount of 6,354,538 won (14,838,115 wonx50/100-1,064,520 won) as of September 28 of the same year with respect to the amount of 3,102,50 won (6,205,00 wonx50/100) from October 28 of the same year to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the above recognized scope and the remainder of the claim shall be without merit, and the plaintiff's decision shall be revoked with respect to the remaining amount of 90% and 90% (6,205,000 won) from the above judgment of the court of first instance and the remaining part of the appeal shall be dismissed from 19810% of the defendant's appeal.

Judge Spanwon (Presiding Judge)