[1] Where a domestic credit card holder receives cash service from a foreign credit card company abroad, whether it is a transaction between a resident and a non-resident under Article 21 subparagraph 1 of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act (negative)

[2] Whether the comprehensive permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy should be granted where a credit card holder receives cash service from a foreign country in accordance with the credit card contract (affirmative)

[1] Where a credit card holder presents a credit card to a foreign credit card issuing company affiliated with the domestic credit card issuing company or receives a cash service by using the cash automatic payment machines installed by the credit card company, the basis of a contract for cash service is pursuant to a credit card transaction contract between the credit card holder and the domestic credit card issuing company, and the subject of the financial burden required for the cash service belongs to the domestic credit card issuing company. Since the relationship or risk burden arising from the cash lending contract belongs to both the domestic credit card issuing company, it is reasonable to view the legal relationship in this case as a monetary lending contract between the credit card holder who is the resident and the domestic credit card issuing company which is the resident. Accordingly, it cannot be viewed as a monetary lending contract between the "resident" and the "non-resident" under Article 21 subparagraph 1 of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act (amended by Act No. 5040 of Dec. 29, 195).

[2] It is reasonable to view that the credit card issuing company's receipt of cash services from a foreign country in accordance with the credit card use agreement of the credit card issuing company is the permission and authorization granted by the Minister of Finance and Economy for its own financing business and overseas use agreement of the credit card issuing company and there is a comprehensive permission granted by the Minister of Finance and Economy pursuant to

[1] [2] Article 21 subparagraph 1 of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act (amended by Act No. 5040 of Dec. 29, 1995) and Article 30 (1) subparagraph 9 of the same Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Attorneys Lee Dong-ju et al.

Seoul District Court Decision 95Da5748, 6552 delivered on November 30, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Defendant 1’s summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the act of receiving cash services from a foreign country by using a credit card as in this case does not require permission because it is impossible to enter into a monetary lending contract between residents and non-residents; (b) even if it is not so domestic, it is in accordance with the terms and conditions of use that a member of a credit card company obtains permission or authorization from the Minister of Finance and Economy; (c) so long as the credit card holder uses a credit card in a foreign country in accordance with the terms and conditions of use, the use of the credit card does not require separate permission or authorization; (d) but the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the Foreign Exchange Control Act or falsely recognizing the fact that the use of the card was unnecessary; (b) although the court below confiscated KRW 17,240,000 that was confiscated by the Defendant, it did not err in the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation or by misunderstanding the fact that the above act was not owned by the Defendant; and (c) even if it is not so, the court below’s decision is unlawful or unreasonable.

2. Judgment of party members

A. Summary of the facts charged

이 사건 공소사실의 요지는, 피고인 1은 서울 강남구 역삼동 (상세주소 생략)소재 자신의 주거지에서 신용카드 가운데 비자, 마스타 등 외국카드회사와 제휴되어 있는 신용카드는 국내 사용한도를 모두 사용하고서도 외국에서 외국환으로 1인당 미화 3,000$ 내지 5,000$의 현금대출 또는 물품구입을 할 수 있음을 이용하여 피고인 및 국내 신용카드 사채업자들이 수집한 신용카드를 받아 외국으로 반출하여 현금자동대출서비스기(ATM)에서 외국환을 인출하여 국내 신용카드 대출희망자들에게 건네주고 일정 수수료를 받는 신용카드 사채업을 하는 자로서 외국환관리법상 거주자이고, 피고인 2, 3, 4, 원심 공동피고인 1, 2, 3 및 공소외 1은 모두 신용카드 대출희망자들을 모집하여 위 피고인 1에게 알선해 주고 일정 수수료를 받는 신용카드 사채업을 하는 자로서 외국환관리법상 거주자인바, 거주자와 비거주자 간의 금전대차 계약에 따른 채권의 발생 등에 관한 거래는 재정경제원장관의 허가를 받아야 함에도 불구하고 허가 없이, (1) 피고인 1은 위 원심 공동피고인 1과 공모하여 위 원심 공동피고인 1은 1995. 7 1.경 서울 영등포구 영등포 3가 소재 남서울빌딩 524호 사무실에서 해외대출을 희망하는 거주자인 공소외 황중기 등으로부터 신용카드 8매를 모집하고, 위 피고인 1은 위 원심 공동피고인 1로부터 이를 넘겨받아 일본으로 건너가 같은 해 7. 2.∼7. 3.경 비거주자인 일본 동경시 소재 DC카드 현금자동대출서비스기에서 거주자인 위 황중기 명의의 국민은행 신용카드로 일화 160,000￥(한화 1,280,000원 상당)은 인출하여 대출받은 것을 비롯하여 원심 판시 별지(1) 기재 범죄일람표와 같이 도합 8회에 걸쳐 일화 580,000￥(한화 4,464,000원 상당)을 대출받고, (2) 피고인 1, 2는 공모하여, 위 피고인 2는 1995. 7. 1.경 서울 관악구 봉천동 931의 11 소재 정준빌딩 202호 사무실에서 해외대출을 희망하는 거주자인 공소외 배윤태 등으로부터 신용카드 12매를 모집하고, 위 피고인 1은 위 피고인 2로부터 이를 넘겨받아 일본으로 건너가 같은 해 7. 2.∼7. 3.경 비거주자인 일본 동경시 소재 DC카드 현금자동대출서비스기에서 거주자인 위 배준태 명의의 국민은행 신용카드로 일화 160,000￥(한화 1,280,000원 상당)을 인출하여 대출받은 것을 비롯하여 원심 판시 별지(2) 기재 범죄일람표와 같이 도합 12회에 걸쳐 일화 1,360,000￥(한화 10,880,000원 상당)을 대출받고, (3) 피고인 1, 3은 공모하여 위 피고인 3은 서울 종로구 종로 2가 8 소재 장안빌딩 401호 사무실에서 해외대출을 희망하는 거주자인 공소외 이원구 등으로부터 신용카드 23매를 모집하고, 위 피고인 1은 위 피고인 3으로부터 이를 넘겨받아 일본으로 건너가 같은 해 7. 2.경 비거주자인 일본 동경시 소재 DC카드 현금자동대출서비스기에서 거주자인 위 이원구 명의의 국민은행 신용카드로 일화 160,000￥(한화 1,280,000원 상당)을 인출하여 대출받은 것을 비롯하여 원심 판시 별지(3) 기재 범죄일람표와 같이 도합 23회에 걸쳐 일화 2,640,000￥(한화 21,120,000원 상당)을 대출받고, (4) 피고인 1은 위 원심 공동피고인 2와 공모하여 위 원심 공동피고인 2는 1995. 7. 1.경 서울 양천구 목 4동 (상세주소 생략) 소재 자신의 집에서 해외대출을 희망하는 거주자인 공소외 허길수 등으로부터 신용카드 34매를 모집하고, 위 피고인 1은 위 원심 공동피고인 2로부터 이를 넘겨받아 일본으로 건너가 같은 해 7. 2.경 비거주자인 일본 동경시 소재 DC카드 현금자동대출서비스기에서 거주자인 위 허길수 명의의 국민은행 신용카드로 일화 240,000￥(한화 1,920,000원 상당)을 인출하여 대출받은 것을 비롯하여 원심 판시 별지(4) 기재 범죄일람표와 같이 도합 34회에 걸쳐 일화 4,980,000￥(한화 39,840,000원 상당)을 대출받고, (5) 피고인 1은 위 공소외 1과 공모하여 위 피고인 1은 1995. 6. 11.경부터 같은 해 7. 1.까지 서울 소재 상호불상의 사무실에서 해외대출을 희망하는 거주자인 공소외 이래열 등으로부터 신용카드 38매를 모집하고, 위 피고인 1은 위 공소외 1로부터 이를 넘겨받아 일본으로 건너가 같은 해 7. 2.∼7. 3.경 비거주자인 일본 동경시 소재 DC카드 현금자동대출서비스기에서 거주자인 위 이래열 명의의 국민은행 신용카드로 일화 160,000￥(한화 1,280,000원 상당)을 인출하여 대출받은 것을 비롯하여 원심 판시 별지(5) 기재 범죄일람표와 같이 도합 38회에 걸쳐 일화 3,690,000￥(한화 29,520,000원 상당)을 대출받고, (6) 피고인 1, 4는 공모하여 위 피고인 4는 1995. 5. 7.경부터 같은 해 5. 20.경까지 서울 소재 상호불상의 피고인 사무실에서 해외대출을 희망하는 거주자인 공소외 김성하 등으로부터 신용카드 37매를 모집하고, 위 피고인 1은 위 피고인 4로부터 이를 넘겨받아 일본으로 건너가 같은 해 5. 21.∼5. 23.경 비거주자인 일본 동경시 소재 DC카드 현금자동대출서비스기에서 거주자인 위 김성하 명의의 국민은행 신용카드로 일화 170,000￥(한화 1,360,000원 상당)을 인출하여 대출받은 것을 비롯하여 원심 판시 별지(6) 기재 범죄일람표와 같이 도합 38회에 걸쳐 일화 3,710,000￥(한화 29,680,000원 상당)을 대출받고, (7) 피고인 1은 위 원심 공동피고인 3과 공모하여 위 원심 공동피고인 3은 1995. 5. 13.경 서울 소재 상호불상의 피고인 사무실에서 해외대출을 희망하는 거주자인 공소외 이수연 등으로부터 신용카드 4매를 모집하고, 위 피고인 1은 위 원심 공동피고인 3으로부터 이를 넘겨받아 일본으로 건너가 같은 해 5. 14.∼5. 16.경 비거주자인 일본 동경시 소재 DC카드 현금자동대출서비스기에서 거주자인 위 이수연 명의의 국민은행 신용카드로 일화 80,000￥(한화 640,000원 상당)을 인출하여 대출받은 것을 비롯하여 원심 판시 별지(7) 기재 범죄일람표와 같이 도합 4회에 걸쳐 일화 280,000￥(한화 2,240,000원 상당)을 대출받아 거주자와 비거주자간의 금전대차계약에 따른 채권의 발생에 관한 거래를 한 것이다라고 함에 있는바, 검사는 구 외국환관리법(1995. 12. 29. 법률 제5040호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 단순히 외국환관리법이라 한다) 제30조 제1항 제9호, 제21조 제1호를 적용하여 그 처벌을 구하고 있고, 원심은 이를 전부 유죄로 인정하면서 피고인들의 원심 법정에서의 각 진술, 검사 작성의 피고인들에 대한 각 피의자신문조서의 각 진술기재, 서월순 작성의 진술서의 기재 및 사법경찰관 사무취급 작성의 압수조서의 기재를 그 증거로 들고 있다.

(b) Markets:

(1) Under the provisions of Article 30(1)9 and Article 21(1) of the Korea Exchange Control Act, a person who intends to conduct a transaction with a resident and a nonresident on the creation, alteration or extinction of claims pursuant to a deposit contract, trust contract, monetary lending and borrowing contract, guarantee contract of debts, external payment means or contract of sales and purchase of claims between a resident and a nonresident (hereinafter referred to as “transaction on the creation of claims”), except as provided in Articles 22 and 23 of the Act, shall obtain permission from the Minister of Finance and Economy (the current Minister of Finance and Economy; hereinafter the same shall apply) under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and a person who conducts such transaction without permission shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or by a fine not exceeding 50,000,000 won. In order to punish Defendant 1’s act of this case by applying the above Article, it is required that Defendant’s act is a transaction on the creation of claims between a resident and a nonresident,

However, according to the evidence cited by the court below, Defendant 1, Co-Defendant 1, 2, and Co-Defendant 3, etc. who purchased an international credit card transaction contract with a foreign credit card company using the credit card company's domestic credit card company's overseas cash lending contract with the foreign credit card company's domestic credit card company's domestic credit card issuing company's overseas cash lending contract with the foreign credit card company's non-indicted 1, 240,000 credit card company's domestic credit card issuing company's domestic cash lending contract with the foreign credit card company's domestic credit card company's non-indicted 1, 2, and 3 are not allowed to use the credit card company's overseas cash lending contract with the foreign credit card company's domestic credit card company's domestic cash lending contract with the foreign credit card company's non-indicted 1, 2,000 credit card issuing company's domestic cash lending contract with the foreign credit card company's domestic credit card company's domestic credit card issuing company's domestic cash lending contract with the foreign credit card company's domestic credit card issuing company's domestic cash lending company's domestic revenue and loan transactions.

(2) According to Article 3 of the Credit Card Business Act, if a credit card company's act of receiving cash services from a foreign country is subject to the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy, it is hard to obtain a credit card company from a foreign country because it is hard to obtain a credit card company's permission to use the credit card company's cash service overseas because it is consistent with the fact that the defendant obtained the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy. Thus, it is hard to obtain a credit card company's comprehensive permission to use the credit card company's credit card service overseas pursuant to the above Article 7 of the Credit Card Business Act, it is hard to obtain a credit card company's permission to use the credit card company's credit card company's credit card service overseas because it is hard to obtain a credit card company's credit card company's credit card business's credit card business's credit card business's credit card business's credit card business's credit card business's credit card business's credit card business's credit card business's credit card business's credit card business's credit card business's credit card transaction business's credit card business's credit card business's credit card business's credit card business's credit.

(3) Thus, Defendant 1’s act of receiving cash services in the cash loan machine established by Japan with a domestic credit card issuing company using a credit card in the name of a resident issued domestically cannot be deemed as a transaction with respect to the defense of the occurrence of claims under the "money lending contract between residents and non-residents" under Article 21 subparag. 1 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, and thus, it is not a transaction requiring permission by the Minister of Finance and Economy, or a transaction requiring comprehensive permission from the Minister of Finance and Economy at the time of issuing a credit card, and thus, Defendant 1’s facts charged in the instant case and the facts charged in the instant case against the remaining Defendants who were indicted for committing a crime or there is no proof of the crime. However, the court below found Defendant 1 guilty on all of them. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the permission under Article 21 subparag. 1 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, or by misunderstanding the facts about the permission, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, it cannot be reversed in whole without further review the remaining grounds for appeal and the

(4) In accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant 1, Defendant 2, 3, and 4, the lower judgment is reversed pursuant to Article 364-2 of the same Act, and the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is again decided as follows.

The summary of the facts charged against the Defendants is as seen above in the judgment on the grounds of appeal, and as seen earlier, it constitutes either a crime or a case where there is no proof of a crime. Therefore, the Defendants are acquitted by applying the former and latter parts of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for more than one reason (attached Form omitted)

Judges Park Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)