beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. The key point of the plaintiffs' assertion is each wholesale and retail product distribution business, and the defendant's card member shop was admitted.
C On June 21, 2016, the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) and Plaintiff B visited the Plaintiff’s business entity to purchase “Sework Energy Co., Ltd.”, and displayed the physical card issued in Australia instead of domestic credit cards. The Plaintiffs approved the payment by telephone (ARS) payment method, and then settled the total amount of KRW 7 million on two occasions in the same day. In the same manner, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 7 million in total on two occasions on the 23th of the same month in the same manner; KRW 4 million on the 25th of the same month; KRW 3 million on the 26th of the same month; and KRW 7 million on the 27th of the same month.
In such a way, C's payment with an overseas issuance physical card is KRW 32 million for the Plaintiff Company and KRW 22 million for the Plaintiff Company.
After the defendant's telephone (ARS) settlement approval, the plaintiffs prepared a credit card purchase slip with the acceptance period and received it to the defendant Nonghyup Bank located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on July 25, 2016, and normally, in order to receive the purchase transfer slip only within 30 days after the credit card settlement, the defendant should investigate whether to approve it or not. The defendant's overseas issuance card is illegal, and the overseas issuance card is not paid if it is not received within 7 days from the approval date. The plaintiffs cannot pay the payment by receiving it to the bank after 7 days from the approval date. The plaintiffs' payment is deferred for 120 days and the credit card company did not receive any dispute over the approval for the use of the card, and refuses to pay the purchase transfer price to the franchise store.
However, since this is a policy without any basis, the defendant is against the plaintiffs.