Scope of guarantee responsibilities of joint and several sureties of bank, credit card holders;

If a bank, credit card member may use a card only within the limit set by the bank, and the monthly limit of 400,000 won by a general member has been set in a bank, credit card member regulations, bank, credit card business dealing rules, etc., the joint guarantor of the amount of credit card use shall bear the responsibility for such guarantee only within the limit of a monthly limit from among the amount of money

Article 429 of the Civil Act

Jeju Bank, Inc.

Cho Nam-tae

Seoul Civil History District Court (84 Ghana186)

1. Revocation of the part against the defendant exceeding the lower payment order among the original judgment, and the plaintiff's claim against that part is dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 287,408 won and the amount at the rate of 18 percent per annum from December 28, 1983 to the date of full payment.

3. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. The total cost of the lawsuit is ten minutes, which is one of which is the remainder of the defendant's own cost.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 3,573,883 won and the amount at the rate of 18 percent per annum from December 28, 1983 to the date of full payment and provisional execution.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff.

In light of Gap evidence 1-1, 2 (Application for Membership of Credit Card and Membership Regulations), Gap evidence 2 (Deferred Loan Settlement Card), and evidence of the court below witness Park Sung-sung, the non-party 1 purchased the credit of the goods from the bank credit card merchant circulation issued by the plaintiff on May 1, 1982 with the credit card merchant as a member of the bank operated by the plaintiff on May 1, 1982. The price shall be paid preferentially by the plaintiff at the request of the chain store (the plaintiff shall be treated as the loan to the above prime unit). The non-party 1 as a member started a transaction by depositing the purchase price of the month to the plaintiff by the 27th day of the following month, and the non-party 2 did not pay the purchase price of the credit card from March 3, 1983 to the plaintiff on July 22, 1983, the above non-party 3,278,03 won, and the non-party 2 did not pay the above amount to the plaintiff and the defendant's damages for delay.

On December 27, 1983, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the whole amount of the credit card use fee to the plaintiff for the above heading sentence, and sought payment of KRW 3,573,883 as the current unpaid price and delay damages as of December 27, 1983, the defendant limited the monthly use limit of the credit card to KRW 400,00, and the defendant believed that the plaintiff would allow the use of the card only within the above limit of the above limit of the defendant's joint and several liability for the portion exceeding the above limit of the guarantee liability. Thus, the above evidence No. 1-2 (Membership Code), and No. 1-2 (Credit Card Business Handling Guidelines) without dispute over the establishment, the bank member can use the card only within the limit of the limit determined by the bank (Article 6 of the membership regulations) and, in the case of the above non-party member, the defendant shall be held liable for the above portion within the limit of the amount of guarantee liability, unless special circumstances exist.

Therefore, according to the above evidence Nos. 2 and 147,408 won on March 1983, 1983, 1,01,797 won on April 1, 191, and 2,495,069 won on May 1, 198 of the same year (the purchase price on the preceding month before the previous month), the defendant's guarantee liability is limited to 400,000 won on the above monthly use limit of 947,408 won (1408,400,400 + 400,000 won). Under the above evidence Nos. 2, the defendant's guarantee liability is limited to 147,408 won on the above monthly use limit of 40,000 won on the above monthly use limit of 40,600 won on the payment of the guaranteed debt to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance that the above defendant's defendant's repayment of 206 won on June 1, 198983.

In the event that credit card holders neglected to pay for a certain amount of money, the defendant's defense that the credit card holder neglected to use the credit card in the above long-term form, despite the possibility of reducing damages such as termination of the contract, and the failure to use the credit card in the above long-term form led to the failure of the plaintiff's negligence and thus, the defendant's liability should be mitigated or exempted. However, according to the evidence No. 2 of the above, the non-party's assertion that the non-party's failure to pay for a loan is a three-month period from March 1983, and the plaintiff paid a portion of the loan thereafter, and the plaintiff decided to suspend the transaction on April 4, 1983, but it can be recognized that the non-party purchased a large quantity of goods during the period of failure to recover the card because the above non-party did not take measures such as termination of the contract. Thus,

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 18 percent per annum under the interest rate on the Financial Group agreement from December 28, 1983 to the date of maturity for the above deposit amounting to KRW 287,408 and the above amount due, and the plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 18 percent per annum pursuant to the Financial Group agreement from December 28, 1983 to the date of full payment. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim in this case shall be accepted within the above recognized scope and the remainder shall be dismissed without merit. Since the part against the defendant against which he ordered payment in excess of the above recognized scope in the original judgment is unfair, it shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim for the portion shall be dismissed. The defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition

Judges interest-oriented (Presiding Judge)