The fact of card loss, etc. shall be notified without delay, and the responsibility of reported bank and credit card members.

In transactions by so-called bank credit card, even though all liability for the loss or theft of the card belongs to the credit card member, the bank shall not be held liable to the member even if the member was negligent in notifying the bank of the loss, theft, etc. and immediately reported the contents in writing in accordance with the prescribed form, although the bank neglected to notify the credit card member or neglected to verify the loss, theft, and signature of the card, and thus the member's signature was made.

Article 2 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1490 Decided March 11, 1986

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

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 84Na1987 delivered on February 8, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In transactions by so-called bank credit card, even if all liabilities arising from the theft of the card belong to the credit card holder, it is reasonable in light of the principle of trust and good faith to ensure the safety of transactions that even if a member was notified to the bank of the loss, theft, etc. and immediately reported the contents thereof in writing in accordance with the prescribed form, the bank cannot be held liable for the loss or theft of the card even if the member was negligent in notification to the credit card holder or the member's negligence in confirmation of the loss or theft card and comparison of signature, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1490, Mar. 11, 1986).

According to the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance, at around 17:40, 1983, the defendant was stolen from the wallets containing credit cards within the Plaintiff bank's credit card store, which is the Plaintiff bank's credit card store, and immediately reported card theft to the Plaintiff bank's head office at around 15:40 on the same day, but it was inevitable to refuse receipt of the report at the bank level due to the reason that the relevant employee left the bank office, and then, it was confirmed that the member store and the signature were affixed to the card's card's card's identity, and then sold the product after checking the same person's signature on the card's identity. Since the Plaintiff bank received a report from the Defendant, it cannot be seen that it was clearly identical to that of the Defendant's bank's name and the card's signature on the card's signature on the 20th day and then, it was also possible that the other party's name and the other party's signature on the card's identity and the other party's signature on the card's name were paid.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim of this case is just and there is no error of law that points out the theory of lawsuit. We are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, 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 Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)