2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 3,254,302 and KRW 1,473,746 among them. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2063, Sep. 19, 2008>

A. The Defendant concluded a credit card transaction agreement with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C bank”) and received a credit card transaction, such as the purchase of goods and services, and delayed payment of the credit card usage price. As of September 18, 2008, the obligation to use the credit card as of September 18, 2008, including the principal amount of KRW 1,473,746 and delay damages amount of KRW 1,780,56, totaled 3,254,302, and the agreed rate of delay damages amount of KRW 25% per annum.

B. Meanwhile, on September 21, 2004, C Bank against the defendant against D Co., Ltd. (the trade name after the alteration: E Co., Ltd.; hereinafter "E Bank")

On December 24, 2004, a notice of assignment of claims indicating the purport of the assignment of claims was sent to the Defendant. The above content-certified mail reached the Defendant.

C. 1) On September 23, 2008, E Bank filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as Seoul Central District Court 2008Gaso2587634, and on October 20, 2008, the above court rendered a decision of performance recommendation with the purport that “the Defendant shall pay to E Bank 3,254,302 won and 1,473,746 won with interest of 25% per annum from September 19, 2008 to the date of full payment.” (2) The Defendant was directly served the original copy of the above decision of performance recommendation, and the above decision of performance recommendation was finalized on December 23, 2008.

On April 26, 2011, E Bank entered into an asset sales contract with the Plaintiff and transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff. Around that time, E Bank sent a notice of assignment stating the purport of the assignment of claim to the Defendant, and around that time, the said content-certified mail reached the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts seen earlier prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the instant claim was lawfully transferred to the Plaintiff, and the assignment notification as a requisite for setting up against the Plaintiff was lawful.

As such, it can be seen.