Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Defendant issued each of the following credit cards, etc. (hereinafter “instant card”) in which the name of its member is the Plaintiff.

(1) EF cards around November 2009 ② GH cards around May 201, 201. ③ GH cards around August 201, 201 ④ K L cards around June 201, and ④ MF cards around July 2014. ② NNO cards around December 2015.

B. After the issuance of the instant card, the amount that was not settled as the settlement amount, such as the user fee and card loan, incurred until April 5, 2019, is KRW 12,470,000 as the principal amount.

Although the amount entered in the general balance (No. 6) and the statement of calculation of the amount of arrears (No. 7) submitted by the defendant is somewhat different from the amount, there is no obvious dispute about the amount per se.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not that the Plaintiff applied for and issued the instant card, but that R was issued by stealing the Plaintiff’s name. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not have a duty to pay the price related to the instant card.

(B) The Plaintiff, at the time of Jinju, started the restaurant business in the name of “T” in the name of “T” in 201, operated the restaurant in the name of the Plaintiff to R, and the Plaintiff included the resident registration certificate, seal, and passbook in the restaurant Kabrox column. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, on March 3, 201, the following facts are insufficient to recognize that the instant card constitutes the Plaintiff’s pre-issued card by stealing the Plaintiff’s name by making use of the Plaintiff’s name. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, each of the above evidence, evidence Nos. 3, 4, 8, 10, and 15 was used by another person during the period of about 10 years, i.e., several credit cards of the head of the Gu.