Where the limit on monthly purchase or the limit on the use of cash services is determined on the terms and conditions of credit card holders, the scope of the responsibility of the principal member or his family member due to illegal use of credit card

Even if the monthly limit on purchase or the limit on the use of cash services is set on the credit card terms and conditions, it is for the purpose of avoiding economic confusion due to the use of the credit card without restriction, and it cannot be an obstacle for the member himself/herself or his/her family member to assume his/her liability due to the unlawful use of credit card by another person, and the member of his/her family in the same terms and conditions provide that he/she is jointly and severally liable with his/her member for all obligations to the bank, while the joint and several surety provided that he/she is jointly and severally liable for joint and several liability only for the principal of the credit card use price within the limit on monthly purchase or the limit on the use of cash services, the joint and several surety and the family member are clearly different in relation to his/her member, whether he/she is a member

Articles 2(1) and 105 of the Civil Act

The Bank of Korea, Inc.

Choi Young-cheon et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 95020 delivered on January 22, 1992

1. The judgment below is modified as follows.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 14,534,878 and the amount of KRW 13,241,021 per annum from June 2, 1991 to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

2. All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into four parts of the first and second instances, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remaining three by the defendants.

3. The portion ordering the payment of money under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 18,937,895 and the amount of KRW 17,430,451 per annum from June 2, 1991 to the date of full payment.

The part against the plaintiff falling under the next order of payment shall be revoked in the original judgment.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 7,068,820 as well as KRW 6,617,860 as well as KRW 19% per annum from June 2, 1991 to the full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in the first and second instances.

The defendants: The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants is revoked and all of the plaintiff's claims corresponding thereto are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

Defendant 1: The fact that the maximum amount of Defendant 2’s credit card purchase and payment was 90.7.7.1,000 won and the total amount was 1.6% of the total amount and 9.1,000 won and 9.7,000 won and 9.7,000 won and 9.7,000 won and 1.7,000 won and 9.7,000 won and 4,000 won and 9.7,000 won and 9,000 won and 9.7,000 won and 9,000 won and 1,000 won and 5,000 won and 1,000 won and 5,000 won and 1,000 won and 1,000 won and 5,000 won and 1,000 won and 1,000 won and 1,000 won and 2,000 won and 2,00 won.

According to the above facts, the defendants, as members of the credit card themselves and family members of this case, have 917,785 won ( principal 37,587 won +796,64 won + 4,245 won + 41,431 won + 37,858) plus 15 days from the date of the receipt of the report (13,689,70,700 won (17,430,451-37, 696, 290, 2960, 406, 2096, 160, 2096, 290, 2096, 160, 406, 405 won and 405 won (the total amount of 17,430,451-37, 587, 696, 290, 190.28, 290, 2906, 2090.

According to Article 16 (3) 1 of the Credit Card Member Terms and Conditions of this case (Evidence 2 of this case), the plaintiff is liable for the loss of the credit card of this case in case of unlawful use due to the intention or gross negligence of the member. In this case, the defendant Choi Young-cheon, despite being aware of the loss of the credit card of this case on October 15, 1990, neglected to report the loss of the credit card of this case to the plaintiff on November 14 of the same year without immediately reporting it to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants are liable for repayment of the total amount of the illegal use of this case in accordance with the terms and conditions of the above contract, and have no obligation to take measures to change the damage amount of 2,00,000 won from the plaintiff's side. Thus, as seen in the above facts, the defendant Choi Young-cheon was recognized to have become aware of the loss of the credit card of this case from the time of reporting on November 14, 1990, and there is no other evidence supporting the defendants' intention or negligence.

The defendants are the so-called credit card holders, not the amount of purchase of actual goods, but the amount of illegal use of the credit card of this case is the amount of the sales slip in collusion with the illegal user, the member store, the plaintiff or the employees of the non-credit card company, and the merchant prepares a false sales slip and pays to the illegal user the remaining amount after deducting the interest and incidental expenses from the sales slip on the preceding slip. Since the member store was paid the plaintiff or non-credit card company with the illegal payment and the sales price on the preceding slip, there is no evidence to support this.

The defendants asserted that the credit card of this case is not liable for the amount exceeding 500,000 won in the case of lump-sum installment purchase, 1,000,000 won in the case of installment purchase, and 300,000 won in the case of cash services. Thus, according to each of the above evidence Nos. 2 and 1-2, it can be acknowledged that the amount of the credit card of this case is set for the limit of the use of the credit card of this case. However, this is for the purpose of avoiding economic confusion due to the use of the unlimited credit card, and thus, the defendants cannot be an obstacle to the defendants' burden of liability as a member. Thus, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

According to Article 20(1) of the above Bank Credit Card Terms and Conditions, joint and several sureties are liable for joint and several liability only for the principal and interest of card use within the monthly payment limit, monthly installment purchase limit, late late payment charges, and fees. Since Article 2 of the above Terms and Conditions provide that family members shall be jointly and severally liable with the Plaintiff for all of their obligations to the Plaintiff, it is unreasonable that Article 2 of the same Terms and Conditions provide that family members shall be jointly and severally liable for all their obligations to the Plaintiff, the family members shall be construed as limited liability corresponding to the joint and several sureties. Therefore, since there is a significant difference in the relationship with the family members and joint and several sureties, the above terms and conditions provide different scope of the liability of the family members and joint and several sureties, and therefore the above assertion is groundless.

The defendants asserted that the signature written on the back of the credit card of this case is the "minimum + Additional Signature". In light of the fact that the signature of the illegal user written on the sales slip of this case was simply the "minimum,00,000," even if the member store confirmed the signature of the credit card of this case with due care, it would have been able to prevent the illegal use of this case in advance, and since the member store neglected such duty of care, the defendants' responsibilities should be limited. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the signature written on the back of the credit card of this case was written on the back of the credit card of this case, as alleged by the defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge such fact, and therefore, it is not reasonable to further examine the above assertion without any reason.

The Defendants asserted that the franchise store of this case would have been able to prevent unlawful use of the credit card of this case if it had been inquired of whether it exceeded the monthly limit of use of the credit card of this case by means of using the transaction approval terminal, etc., and that the defendants' liability should be mitigated. Thus, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence No. 10 (Financial Instructions), which does not conflict with the establishment, and the purport of the pleading at the time of unlawful use of the credit card of this case, in full view of the whole purport of the pleading, the franchise store installing the transaction approval terminal at the time of unlawful use of the credit card of this case was small number as well as small number of member stores who installed the transaction approval terminal at the time of illegal use of the credit card of this case as the online system for the former member stores was not equipped, and therefore it is impossible to inquire in advance of whether it exceeded the monthly limit of use of the credit card of this case, the above assertion on the premise

However, Article 15(2) of the Credit Card Business Act provides that when a credit card merchant makes a transaction by using a credit card, it shall verify whether the credit card is being properly used by the person in question, such as the signature on the credit card and the signature on the sales slip. According to the above evidence, the credit card merchant of this case does not verify whether an illegal user of the credit card of this case is the person in question. Furthermore, when the credit card purchases the credit card in excess of 300,000 won per time, it shall obtain approval from the credit card company (Article 10(3) of the above Terms and Conditions), it may be recognized that the credit card company sells the goods in excess of the above limit by means of a method of giving sales slips at the same time, and there is no counter-proof. Examining the legal relationship between the credit card company and the member card company in the transaction by using the credit card, it shall be deemed that the credit card company and the member company comprehensively bears the duty of using the credit card to pay damages to the member in addition to the above provision of the credit card transaction agreement or the loan agreement.

If the card company pays its debt to the member's member's member's member's member store and requests the member to pay the payment, the member shall be deemed to be able to oppose the credit card company as the transferee of the claim with the reason that it can oppose the transferor's member's member under Article 451 (2) of the Civil Code.

Therefore, in the case of this case, in a case where a chain store did not neglect its duty of care as seen above and did not go against or expanded the damage, it shall be fair in light of the principle of equity to reduce the liability of the member according to the degree of negligence. The defendants may oppose the plaintiff who is in the position of taking over the claims of a chain store for this reason. Thus, in light of the overall circumstances acknowledged above, the defendants' liability against the plaintiff shall be limited to 85 percent of the amount of unlawful use.

Therefore, the defendants shall jointly and severally use the card using 917,785 won as the result of the actual use by the defendant Choi Young-cheon, and 12,406,770 won equivalent to 85 percent of the principal not affected by the damage out of the unlawful use, and 1,210,323 won equivalent to 1,423 percent of the late payment and the fees out of the unlawful use, and 14,534,878 won in total, and 13,241,021 won in principal (37,587 +796,64 +12,406,770 won) as the result of the actual use by the defendant Lee Young-cheon-cheon, and the plaintiff shall be liable to pay damages out of the total amount of 1,423,910 won in addition to the above 99% per annum from June 2, 191 as the base date of the judgment below's 98 reasons for citing each of the above changes.

Judges Cha Sung-sung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)