Whether a credit card merchant who provides a credit card loan to a person who intends to obtain the credit card price by means of a forged credit card loan is liable for the tort (affirmative)

If a credit card merchant actively participates in the act of a person who intends to obtain the credit card price by means of a forged credit card loan and makes it possible to obtain the credit card price by fraud against a credit card company, which is a violation of the Credit Card Business Act, the credit card merchant shall be liable for tort against the credit card company.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Articles 15(4) and 25(2) of the Credit Card Business Act

Sch Card Co., Ltd.

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Ha-nam, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff the amount of KRW 600,000,000 with an annual interest of KRW 50% from December 1, 1994 to August 16, 1995, with an annual interest of KRW 25% from the next day to the full payment day.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleadings between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 (application form for membership of each member shop), Gap evidence No. 3 (Non-S. Card No. 4), Gap evidence No. 4 (F. 4), and evidence No. 6 (Judgment). There is no dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2.

A. The Plaintiff is a credit card company that runs the credit card business, and the Defendant 1 mainly sells leathers (trade name omitted) (the nameer is Nonparty 1, the father of the above Defendant) and the “(trade name omitted) mainly selling golf products” (the nameer is Nonparty 2, the above Defendant’s mother) (the nameer is Nonparty 2). On August 19, 194, between Defendant 1 and Defendant 1, the Plaintiff entered into an overseas card sales contract with each of the above “(trade name omitted)” as the card sales store under the approval of the franchise agreement presented by each Plaintiff on September 17, 194.

B. On July 194, 1994, Defendant 2 received cash loans from Nonparty 2, a Japanese police officer, using the Japanese credit card from Nonparty 1, Japan, and consented to the receipt of a proposal to offer 15% of the face value of the sales slip as a commission, and then issued a blank sales slip to Suwon City.

C. As above, it is necessary to issue a white paper sales slip from Defendant 2 to Defendant 2 by using the forged Japanese credit card that was issued by Nonparty Dan-do to Nonparty Dan-do, which was issued by Nonparty Dan-do, and sent the sales slip to Defendant 2 on July 1, 1994, using the forged Japanese credit card from Han-man to Han-man on November 1, 1994, with the above forged credit card and the card number, etc. attached to the above forged credit card, and then entered the name of the card holder in English in the signature column on the sales slip and issued it to Defendant 2.

D. Meanwhile, when Defendant 2 received cash loans from Defendant 1 using the Japanese credit card, he suggested that 12.5% of the face value on the sales slip will be paid to Defendant 1 as commission. After obtaining Defendant 1’s consent, Defendant 2 issued 426 of the above sales slip (the remainder of the above sales slip was delivered to other franchisees) to Defendant 1. From August 1, 1994 to November 1, 194, Defendant 1 issued 426 of the above sales slip to Defendant 1. From August 1, 1994, Defendant 2 received 378 of the sales slip (the above sales slip received from Defendant 2 to Defendant 250,000 won after deducting the Plaintiff’s fee from KRW 90,000,000,000 from KRW 378 of the sales slip received from Defendant 2, and the company received 90,000,0000,000 won after deducting the Plaintiff’s fee from KRW 285,000,00.

E. Accordingly, Defendant 1 paid to Defendant 2 the remainder of KRW 878,918,057 after deducting the above contract fees from the total face value of KRW 1,004,477,780 of the sales slips issued by Defendant 2 from the original amount of KRW 426 (which includes the amount received by Defendant 1 from the Plaintiff Company with respect to the above 378 sales slips and the amount received from other credit card companies with respect to the remaining sales slips). Defendant 2 originally issued the sales slips to Defendant 2 after deducting the contract fees from the total face value of KRW 1,302,14,70 of the 644 sales slips received from Defendant 1,106,82,95 (which includes the amount received by Defendant 2 from other credit card holders with respect to the sales slips and the remaining sales slips received by Defendant 1).

2. Determination:

A. According to Article 15 (4) of the Credit Card Business Act, a credit card merchant may not prepare sales slips by pretending that it was engaged in a transaction by credit card without selling goods or providing services, and according to Article 25 (2) 4 of the same Act, a credit card merchant shall punish either a person who provided funds by doing such act, or a person who mediates or arranges such act. According to the above recognized facts, Defendant 1 shall not engage in a credit card loan using false sales slips as a person who entered into a credit card merchant agreement with the Plaintiff company, and Defendant 2 shall not act as a broker or intermediary for credit card loans using false sales slips, and Defendant 2 shall not act as a broker or intermediary for credit card loans using false sales slips. However, the Defendants are liable for damages to the Plaintiff company by having Nonparty 1 do so by using the above forged credit card in sequence through the Defendants.

B. On this point, Defendant 1 knew that the above sales slip was forged, and the above defendant's act was merely a violation of the Credit Card Business Act and did not be held liable to the plaintiff as a matter of course. However, as seen above, Defendant 1's tort liability against the plaintiff does not mean that the above defendant knew that the above credit card was forged and conspired with the plaintiff with the above must know that the above credit card was forged, and that he acquired the credit card price from the plaintiff by fraud, but it is the fact that the above defendant actively participated in the above defendant's act and made it possible to obtain the credit card price by providing the card loan, which is a violation of the Credit Card Business Act, by taking advantage of the forged credit card loan. Thus, the above defendant's above argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, as joint tortfeasor, the defendants are liable to pay each plaintiff the above damages amounting to 891,534,720 won and damages for delay. The defendants are liable to pay each plaintiff the damages amounting to 600,000,000 won and damages for delay after the date of the above tort as part of the plaintiff's claim. The defendants are liable to pay each of the plaintiff the damages amounting to 600,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 1, 1994 to August 16, 1995, which is obvious that the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case is the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and from the next day to the date of full payment, 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings, etc.

Judges Park Jong-sung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)