Where an issuer fails to take follow-up management measures under the Membership Regulations even though significant changes have occurred in the status and credit status of a credit card member, the scope of liability of joint and several guarantors for the portions of transactions thereafter.

Where a credit card member continues to use a credit card transaction without taking measures to suspend or terminate the contract even though he/she has been subject to disciplinary action against the use of a part of the credit card due to the use of a large amount of public funds during the arrears, and the deferred amount of use thereafter causes excessive amount, it is reasonable to reduce his/her responsibility to the joint guarantor for the credit card user's obligation by 50% for the credit card user's obligation from the day following the date on which he/she was subject to

Articles 2 and 429 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 8716, Feb. 25, 1986) (Law No. 8745, Jul. 7, 1987)

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation

Defendant

Busan District Court (86 Ghana16279)

1. The judgment below is modified.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 954,678 and the amount at the rate of 19% per annum from August 11, 1986 to the full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be divided into three parts, one part, and the other part shall be borne by the plaintiff, respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment below is modified.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,793,448 won with 19% interest per annum from August 11, 1986 to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution (the plaintiff has reduced part of the claim in the first and second trials).

If Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Application for Membership Card of Bank), 2-1 through 3 (Director of each Bank Credit Card), 4-1 to 39 (Statement of Use by Month), and 5-1 to 39 (Written Application for Membership Card and Sales Table) each of the above witnesses and the non-party's testimony which are acknowledged to have been established by the whole purport of oral argument and the whole purport of oral argument are all different, the non-party's joint and several liability with the plaintiff's association and its member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member.

However, the defendant first asserted that the above joint and several liability contract was concluded by the plaintiff's coercion, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Next, the defendant asserts that the above joint and several guarantee contract is null and void since the employees of the agricultural cooperative are prohibited from the act of guarantee under the service regulations, so the above joint and several guarantee contract is asserted to the effect that the above joint and several guarantee contract is null and void, and according to the statement of evidence Nos. 1 (the service regulations of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation), it can be acknowledged that the employees of the agricultural cooperative are restricted from becoming the guarantor of the plaintiff's association or member cooperatives pursuant to Article 11 of the service regulations, and there is no other counter-proof, but the above service regulations are only for the internal discipline of the employees of the agricultural cooperative, and they are not valid in general and legal terms, so the above service regulations are not valid,

In addition, the defendant asserts that the above credit card use contract was concluded by setting a monthly credit transaction limit of 700,000 won, taking into account the status of the member's monthly income and the ability to pay the price. Thus, since the defendant's liability for guarantee or his monthly credit transaction limit of this month extends to only 700,000 won, the above credit card use limit of the non-party's monthly card use limit of 200,000 won is determined as 50,000 won in cash loan loan, but the above credit card use limit of the non-party's credit card use limit of the non-party's monthly credit card use limit of the above month, i.e., the non-party's credit card use limit of the above month, and the non-party's witness and the witness Kim Young-young's testimony, all of which are the above credit card use limit of the non-party's credit card use limit of 00,000 won, the above monthly use limit of the above amount can be acknowledged within the limit of 70 months.

However, in light of the above evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 9 Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (Guidelines for Credit Card Business Handling) which are without dispute over each establishment of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 1, and 3 No. 1 and the purport of the argument of the non-party witness, the plaintiff's association under the Rules of the plaintiff's association and the Membership Regulations stipulate that if the member's member neglects to pay the price according to the card use and credit conditions or his contract changes, the use of the card can be suspended and the contract can be terminated. However, the non-party's failure to pay 115,909 won out of the above credit card use contract of 197.8.10.66 billion won, it is reasonable that the non-party's 1,594,00 won was reduced from the plaintiff's association to the above 198.6 billion won after the above credit card use contract of the non-party's 198.6 billion won.

Finally, the defendant alleged that 225,00 won was more paid out of the above card use price of December 2, 1985. Thus, according to the statement of No. 4 (Co. 4 copy of deposit passbook) which is recognized as true by the whole purport of the pleadings, and the testimony of the non-party witness at the court below, the non-party can be acknowledged as having deposited 225,00 won in his savings deposit account on December 2, 1985. However, according to each statement of No. 6 (Detailed Statement of Use by Members), No. 7 (Guarantee of Savings Transaction) and No. 205,00 won, the above deposit price of 20,000 won was 10,000 won and 20,000 won were 20,000 won and 20,000 won were 20,000 won and 20,000 won were 20,000 won and 20,000 won were 20,00 won were paid out of the remaining 20.20.1.2.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above amount to 954,678 won (115,909+838,769) and damages for delay at the rate of 19% per annum from August 11, 1986, which the plaintiff sought for full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. The judgment of the court below is erroneous as the conclusion is partially different, and it is so modified, the plaintiff's remaining claims shall be dismissed, and provisional execution shall be borne as per Disposition 4, and it is so decided as per Disposition by allowing provisional execution.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)