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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. On May 4, 2011, the Plaintiff was divided into part of the credit card business of Defendant Woori Bank Co., Ltd. and was established on April 1, 2013 by the Defendant.

It is not classified below, but is called “Defendant” only.

In the event that the credit card price was overdue while entering into a credit card membership agreement and the credit card was used with the credit card, the credit card payment was in arrears on May 31, 2012, the loan amount of 4,90,000 won, the loan period of 36 months, the interest rate of 24% per annum on June 4, 2012, the interest rate of delay 28% per annum on a rate of 28% per annum on a repayment basis, and the repayment of principal on a repayment basis (hereinafter “instant substitute loan”). On June 4, 2012, the bank loan of this case was refunded to 4,840,217 won.

B. On March 28, 2013, the Defendant recovered KRW 5,027,585 from the Plaintiff by means of bad debt depreciation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including branch numbers in the case of additional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remaining principal due to the repayment loan of this case, interest thereon, and delay damages to the Defendant, unless there are special circumstances to the Defendant.

B. On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to repay the instant substitute loan to the Defendant, since the Plaintiff fully repaid the principal amount of the instant substitute loan of KRW 4,646,486, the late payment charge of KRW 213,925, the late payment charge of KRW 167,174.

The statements in evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6 alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff repaid the obligation to repay the instant substitute loan to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit.