1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Facts of recognition

On June 26, 2007, the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with Samsung Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tsung Card”) to grant a loan of KRW 18,00,000 at a fixed rate of 9.5% per annum and six months for the loan period. On January 2, 2008, the Defendant entered into an agreement to change the terms and conditions of the loan agreement with the Samsung Card and the loans of KRW 18,00,000 per annum over 60 months for a loan period of KRW 11.5% per annum, 2% per annum, and overdue interest rate of KRW 24.9%.

From May 24, 1994, the Defendant obtained a credit card from the Korea Exchange Bank (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank”) from the Korea Exchange Bank (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank”) and used the credit card, and the foreign Exchange Bank owned the principal amount of 8,231,549 won, such as credit card payment, and its delayed damages claim against the Defendant.

On June 28, 2013, the above financial institutions transferred all of the claims held against the Defendant to the Plaintiff. On March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims with the delegation of the authority to notify the transfer from the above creditor financial institutions. The above notification reached the Defendant around that time.

As of February 26, 2014, the sum of principal and overdue interest of each of the above claims is KRW 50,279,119 (= Principal KRW 22,545,506 + Samsung Card 14,414,957 + KRW 8,131,549 + overdue interest of KRW 27,732,613 (= Samsung Card 14,074,489 KRW 13,658,124). The delay interest rate determined by the Plaintiff is 17% per annum.

[Grounds for recognition] Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including a serial number, and the defendant alleged to the effect that Gap evidence Nos. 7-1 and 2 were forged, but according to the above facts of recognition as to the ground for claim as to the whole of the pleadings, according to the above facts of recognition as to the ground for claim as to Gap evidence Nos. 7-1 and 2 at the third day of pleading at the court of the first instance, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established.)