COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH CONCERNING INTERESTRELATION OFCUSTOMERS IN CREDIT-TRANSACTIONS.

我对德国的分期付款销售进行了全面的研究。我研究的目的是如何在现代信贷交易中保护客户。因此，我发现了德国的判决和文献，在这些判决和文献中，对客户的金融家的防御被切断是认可的。他们认为，如果人们能够认识到销售合同和消费贷款之间存在实际的经济联系，就应该给予消费者这样的辩护。但是，文献中提出的法律解释并不一致：例如，Oneside认为该债券是“目的债券”（s.(section) 818）、“同一诉讼”（s.(section) 139）、基于（section） 242的“诉讼基础”（Geschaftsgrundfage）或德国民法（section） 273中的“同一法律关系”。另一方面，将客户与信用机构之间的关系理解为一种合伙合同，然后根据德国民法（第415条）承认客户的终止抗辩是一种责任。然而，德国的判决理解了“知情同意”（Aufklarungspflicht）的问题：这些在德国民法（第242条）的适用中保护了客户。然而，正如C.Bockmann在他的工作中所说，在没有知情同意的情况下，应该认识到客户的防御能力被切断，因为客户对卖方、客户和信贷机构之间各种合同所产生的风险知之甚少。

I conducted comprehensive research related to installment sales in Germany. The aim of my research was how to protect customers in modern credit-transactions. As a result, I discovered German judgments and literatures in which the cut-off of defenses against financers of customers was recognized. These have considered that customers should be given such a defense if man can recognize an actual and economical bond between contracts of sale and loan for consumption. But legal explanations presented by literatures were not consistent : Oneside considers, for example, as that bond the "aim-bond" (s.(section) 818), "one action" (s.(section) 139), an "action basis" (Geschaftsgrundfage) founded from (section) 242 or "same legal relation" in (section) 273 of German civil law. The other, understand the relation between customers and creditinstution as a partnership-contract and then recognizes the customer's cut-off of defense as a responsibility according to (section) 415 of German civil law. However, German judgments understood the matter of "informed consent" (Aufklarungspflicht) : These have protected customers in applications of (section) 242 of German civil law. However, cut-off of defenses for customers should be recognized without informed consent, because customers have little knowledge concerning risk resulting from various contracts among seller, customer and creditinstitution, as C.Bockmann says in his work.