The scope of joint and several sureties of credit card members' liability;

Unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the monthly credit transaction ceiling should be determined in consideration of the status of property such as monthly income of the member of the member who subscribed to credit card and the ability to pay the price, and that it cannot be unlimitedly. It is reasonable to view that a credit card joint guarantor guarantees the performance of the price (cash loans or goods) within the set limit of the monthly credit transaction. The credit card use exceeding the above credit transaction ceiling should be regulated under the risk burden of the credit card issuer, and this does not extend the scope of the guarantor's liability.

Article 429 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu111 Decided January 28, 1986

Seoul Trust Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na154 decided July 5, 1985

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded a credit card general membership agreement with the same non-party between the Plaintiff Bank and the non-party 1 on September 25, 1982 that the same non-party may obtain a monthly cash loan of up to 100,000 won from the main point of the Plaintiff Bank at the point of the main office of the Plaintiff Bank, and may purchase goods from the member store on credit, and the use amount shall be deposited and paid to the Plaintiff Bank by the 27th day of the following month, and

After recognizing the fact that the non-party's joint and several liability for using the above credit card was established, the non-party's monthly maximum amount of use under the above credit card contract is KRW 300,000, and the defendant's joint and several liability cannot exceed the above amount of the defendant's joint and several liability, the credit card use limit of the non-party's general credit card member, such as the non-party, can not exceed the above non-party's credit card's credit card use limit. The non-party's credit card use limit of the non-party's credit card loan of KRW 200,000 per time is recognized as 1,00,000 per month, and there is no evidence to prove

However, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that a credit card member's credit transaction limit should be set monthly in consideration of his/her financial status such as monthly income and his/her ability to pay the price, and it is not unlimited. It is reasonable to view that a credit card joint guarantor guarantees the performance of the price (cash loans or the price for goods) within the set limit of credit transaction. The credit card user's credit card use exceeding the above limit should be regulated under the risk burden of the card issuer, and it does not extend the scope of the guarantor's liability (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1626, Jan. 28, 1986; 85Meu111, May 27, 1986).

However, even according to Article 12 of the Membership Regulations (Evidence A-2) of this case, it cannot be interpreted that the provision guaranteeing the payment of an unlimited transaction price exceeding the monthly use limit in light of the above legal principles, and according to the contents of the evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (Credit Card Guidance and Credit Card Guidance) cited by the court below, it is difficult to recognize that the limit is 100,000 won per month in the case of a cash loan, but it is difficult to recognize that the limit per time is 200,000 won in the case of a goods purchase, and that there is no limit on the monthly use limit, and that the testimony by Nonparty 2 of the first instance trial witness alone is difficult to recognize it.

Therefore, the court below should have determined the monthly limit of this case by the above non-party after exercising the right of explanation on the monthly limit of the credit card of this case and urging the defendant to further prove such limit, and then did not reach such limit and recognized the defendant's obligation to guarantee the full amount of the credit card used by the above non-party. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the scope of the liability of the credit card guarantor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it is reasonable to point this out.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)