reasonable interpretation of terms and conditions concerning the guarantee period of joint and several sureties in the transaction of the Credy Card;

Where the term of validity of a credit card is not specified at the time of the transaction agreement and joint and several sureties's guarantee agreement, and only the term of validity of a credit card is indicated on the card, if the credit card issuance company did not notify it to the joint and several sureties at the time of the credit card renewal, it is reasonable to view that the guarantee period of the said joint and several sureties is terminated once the term of validity on

Article 103 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (85 Ghana14259) in the first instance trial

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 743,00 won with 24 percent interest per annum from March 29, 1985 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (written application for card issuance), Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 (written statement of each transaction) to 5 (written statement of each transaction), each authenticity of which is recognized by non-party 1's testimony, and the whole purport of the testimony and pleading of the above witness, the plaintiff company operating department store entered into a goods credit transaction agreement with the defendant on Nov. 20, 1981, and continued to engage in goods credit transaction with the defendant in the original judgment until Feb. 13, 1985. In the above transaction agreement, the defendant agreed to pay the goods purchased each month from the plaintiff to the 28th of the following month, and if the above payment date is overdue, the overdue interest rate is 20% per annum, and as of Feb. 13, 1985, the defendant cannot be held liable for all goods payment to the plaintiff as of Feb. 13, 1985 through the guarantee agreement between the plaintiff company and the defendant company.

Accordingly, according to the above guarantee agreement with the defendant, the plaintiff is seeking payment of the amount of KRW 743,00 to the plaintiff of the original judgment and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 240 percent per annum from March 29, 1985 to the date following the payment date of the above agreement with respect to the plaintiff of the original judgment in accordance with the above guarantee agreement. The defendant is asserting that the term of the above guarantee agreement is 2 years and the goods payment obligation of the plaintiff of this case is incurred after the expiration date of the above guarantee agreement.

Therefore, according to the above evidence, since the above agreement between the plaintiff, the defendant and the defendant had no provision regarding the transaction period and the guarantee period of joint and several sureties at the time of the above agreement, the defendant, who is a joint and several sureties, may not express his/her intention to terminate the above guarantee agreement at any time after the above guarantee agreement, and there is no other counter-proof. The defendant's defense to the effect that the above guarantee agreement has a two-year period, and the expiration date is not reasonable. On the other hand, the defendant's guarantee liability of the joint and several sureties in the above transaction agreement was not established in the above case after the expiration of the guarantee agreement, and if it is extremely necessary to reasonably determine the guarantee period of the contract without any limitation on the terms and conditions of the contract, it is necessary to determine the guarantee period of the plaintiff's own interest as a result of the expiration of the guarantee agreement.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed without merit, and the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-bok (Presiding Judge)