2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applicable.

A. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements (including the paper numbers) in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6.

1) At the time of January 2015, the Defendant: (a) lent a credit card to the Plaintiff, who was in the school system at the time of the Plaintiff’s lending of the credit card in the Plaintiff’s name, stating that “on the loan, he would pay the amount that he would pay by his credit card later; and (b) the Plaintiff is the Defendant’s credit card holder in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter

(2) The Defendant borrowed the instant credit card from February 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015, and used a total of KRW 4,702,821 on a total of 170 occasions as shown in the separate sheet, as shown in the separate sheet.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,702,821 of the credit card of this case and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 9, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is obvious that the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case. However, even if the defendant used the credit card of this case, even if he used the credit card of this case, he asserts that the defendant would not comply with the plaintiff's claim of this case since he would have used it as a joint expense such as

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s promise to pay the amount that the Defendant paid with the instant credit card was subsequently made by borrowing the instant credit card from the Plaintiff, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the recognition of the existence of the said agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

2. The defendant's defense is a defense that the defendant paid 500,000 won out of the above credit card use price, but it is proved that the defendant's assertion is true.