COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH CONCERNING INTERESTRELATION OFCUSTOMERS IN CREDIT-TRANSACTIONS.

我在德国进行了与分期付款销售相关的全面研究。我研究的目的是如何在现代信用交易中保护客户。因此，我发现德国的判决和文献中，对客户的金融家的防御被认为是切断。他们认为，如果人们能够认识到销售合同和消费贷款合同之间存在着实际的经济联系，那么顾客就应该得到这样的辩护。但是，各文献所提出的法律的解释并不一致：例如，一方认为，“目的债券”（s。（第818条），“一个行动”（s。德国民法第139条规定的“诉讼基础”、第242条规定的“诉讼基础”或第273条规定的“同一法律的关系”。二是将客户与征信机构之间的关系理解为合伙合同关系，并依据德国民法第415条的规定，将客户的抗辩权的解除认定为一种责任。然而，德国的判决理解“知情同意”的问题：这在德国民法第242条的适用中保护了客户。然而，正如C.Bockmann在他的著作中所说的那样，由于客户对卖方、客户和信贷机构之间的各种合同所产生的风险知之甚少，因此，在没有知情同意的情况下，应承认客户的防御切断。

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.