206Na8892 Payments by credit card

AA Card Corporation

Seoul Central District

Daejeon Seo-gu Office of Service

Park BB by the representative director

Manager ParkCC

DaD (68***********)*

Daejeon Daejeon Seo-gu Songdong-dong

Daejeon District Court Decision 2005Gaso19051 Delivered on June 22, 2006

December 22, 2006

January 19, 2007

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 13,778,162 won and 11,726,00 won among them at the rate of 29.9% per annum from July 19, 2005 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 15, 2002, the Defendant entered into a membership agreement with the Plaintiff, and was issued a credit card under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the instant credit card”) from the Plaintiff, and the use price of the instant credit card has been settled through the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant (306*******).

B. However, on October 21, 2004, the person in whose name the identity has not been verified entered the instant credit card online, and registered as qq 24532********.co.r on October 22, 2004 with the Defendant's driver's license forged, and issued the passbook (Account Number 069****************) upon receipt of the Defendant's application for bank transactions with the Bank of Korea on October 22, 2004. On the 27th of the same month, the instant credit card settlement account was changed from the Agricultural Bank to the said Bank's account. The credit card company of this case was then opened on October 27, 2004 through the Internet electronic electronic settlement service company, 200, 200, 200, 2004 and 200, 204.7.10, 2004.

D. As of July 18, 2005, the instant credit card use price remains at KRW 13,593,082 (principal KRW 11,726,00 + commission KRW 206,523 + interest KRW 496,746 + interest KRW 1,163,813). The overdue interest rate applied from October 1, 2003 is 29.9% per annum.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the credit card use fee due to the accident of this case, since the accident of this case occurred by divulging the credit card information and password, and according to the Credit Card Member Regulations, the credit card holders shall not be held liable for damages to the members due to theft, loss, or other accidents not by the plaintiff.

(2) On October 27, 2004, the defendant claimed that the defendant could not respond to the plaintiff's request since the plaintiff could not respond to the plaintiff's request because the plaintiff did not purchase goods or obtain loans using the credit card of this case on October 28, 204, at issue, and since the non-resident's name was forged the defendant's driver's license and caused the accident in this case.

(b) Markets:

(1) According to Article 18 (Liability related to Secret Number) of the Credit Card Company Regulations, “Where a credit card company confirms that the password and the password reported to the credit card company are the same as that of a transaction using a password, such as cash service, card loan, etc., and processes cash service, card loan, etc. in accordance with the altered contents, it shall not be held liable even if any damage to the credit card company arises due to theft, loss, or other accidents, not by the credit card company.”

(2) According to the above terms and conditions, unless the Plaintiff is negligent, the Plaintiff is not liable, but the card theory and cash service using a credit card depend only on the possession and secret number of the credit card holders. Therefore, there is a significant possibility that the credit card holders will be made by a third party regardless of the intent of the credit card holders. Despite no intention or negligence on the part of the credit card holders in connection with the illegal use of the credit card, imposing all losses on the credit card holders is not acceptable from the perspective of equity and consumer protection. The Defendant’s terms and conditions of the contract on the part of the Plaintiff are interpreted to be liable if only the credit card holders are liable even if there is no negligence on the credit card holders with regard to the divulgence of password.

In light of the fact that there is room to deem it invalid under subparagraph 2 of Article 7 of the Regulation of Terms and Conditions as "a clause that moves to a customer without any reasonable reason", it is reasonable to interpret the above credit card terms and conditions to limit it to "a credit card member's exclusion from liability if he/she proves that he/she does not have intention or negligence in the divulgence of a password."

(3) According to the health stand, Gap's evidence Nos. 8 and 11, the defendant applied for sales of 594,000 won on February 9, 2004, which is the business entity providing the financing of cash by pretending the purchase of goods, and was revoked on the day, but it is difficult to find that the above facts alone are responsible for the divulgence of the password. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, it can be recognized that there was any negligence on the part of the defendant in the leakage of the password, and the fact that the non-resident of the name changed the customer information of the credit card of this case on the Internet, changed the card settlement account using the falsified driver's license of the defendant and caused the accident of this case after the change of the card settlement account. Thus, it is difficult to find that the defendant had intention or

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge of the presiding judge, assistant judge

Judges Laos

Judges Lee Jin-jin