Liability of credit card holders who have issued credit cards by deception to another person.

In light of the purport of a credit card transaction agreement that provides that no credit card company shall lend a card to another person, and a credit card company shall be liable for damages or losses incurred by the credit card company's intentional or gross negligence to another person by transfer, lending, or offering it as security, and the credit card may be readily used if the credit card enters another person's number, and the credit card company shall keep it with the same care as cash. Thus, even if the credit card company issued a card by deceiving the other person, it shall be deemed that the credit card company should bear the same responsibility as the case it directly uses the card.

Article 12, Article 16 of the Credit Card Business Act

National Credit Card Corporation

Residents of the State;

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 19,990,047 won and the amount of 19,984,047 won among them at the rate of 19% per annum from July 28, 1989 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be twenty minutes and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20,125,047 won with an amount equivalent to 19% per annum from July 28, 1989 to the full payment of 20,119,047 won.

On June 9, 1989, the defendant conducts transactions such as temporary or installment purchase of goods and services, cash services, etc. between the plaintiff company and the member shop of the plaintiff company using a national credit card issued by the plaintiff company on June 9, 1989, and entered into a so-called credit card transaction agreement to pay the user fees through the defendant's settlement account established in the non-applicant National Bank, a non-applicant company, and issued a national credit card (hereinafter referred to as the "credit card") from the plaintiff company on or before the 16th of the same month according to the above agreement. According to the above agreement, if the member received cash service from the 1st of each month by using the credit card, the payment shall be made on the 20th of the following month with 20% interest rate, 160% interest rate of 30% interest rate, 160% interest rate of 196% interest rate, 20% interest rate of 30% interest rate of 160% interest rate per annum, 20616% interest rate per annum.

Of the above, the defendant's direct use of the card is 593,00 won, and the remaining amount is the price generated by the illegal use of the card. Thus, the defendant cannot be held liable for it. Thus, if the defendant's direct use of the card out of 20,125,047 won is viewed as the whole purport of pleading, the defendant's direct use of the card is 300,000 won and 293,000 won, and the remaining amount is presented to the guarantor of the card. The defendant's personal use of the card is the fact that the defendant's personal use of the card is the price generated by the illegal use of the card from the card to the 21st of the same month, but the defendant's own use of the card can not be held liable for damages to the non-party's own use of the card. However, according to Gap's statement on the card No. 2, the defendant's own use of the card cannot be viewed as the defendant's own use of the card and its own use of the card.

In addition, the defendant's card's member store, such as a lot shopping store using the defendant's card, must verify that the person who presented the card is actually the card's member's own due care when paying the transaction price by using the card. However, it is a defense to the effect that since it is due to the negligence of the plaintiff's member store or the plaintiff's company's company's wrong negligence, the defendant should be exempted from liability. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it except for the following part as to whether the plaintiff's member store neglected to verify the identity of the member's member's member's identity. However, if the defendant's prior purport of pleading No. 6, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 17, and No. 2, it is hard to find that the above defendant's member's signature was reduced to KRW 10,000,000, which is the above 70,000,000 won, and the above 2,000,000 won.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 19,990,047 won (20,125,047-135,000) and damages for delay at the rate of 19,984,047 won (19,990,047-6,000) from July 28, 1989 to the full payment date, which is the day following the payment date for cash service fees of 6,000 won (19,990,047-6,000) out of the above amount. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jin-ju (Presiding Judge)