1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,864,981 and its 28,255,654 with 24% per annum from September 5, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 6, 2002, the Defendant issued and used a credit card upon entering into a credit card use agreement with Hyundai Card Co., Ltd.

B. Around July 31, 2014, Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. transferred to the Plaintiff a credit card payment claim against the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the claim on August 4, 2014.

C. As of September 4, 2014, the Defendant’s unpaid card price claim against Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. is as follows.

1) The remaining principal 28,255,654 won (2) interest 1,043,009 won (3) interest 1,565,418 won (4), annual fee and other 900 won (30,864,981 won)

D. The overdue interest rate on credit cards determined by Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. is 24% per annum from February 1, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,864,981 and the principal amount of KRW 28,255,654, which is the day following the date of calculating the interest, 24% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate from September 5, 2014 to the day of full payment, barring special circumstances.

3. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since he applied for individual rehabilitation. However, even if the individual rehabilitation procedure against the defendant begins, the act of receiving repayment of individual rehabilitation claims or demanding repayment can be suspended or prohibited, and the lawsuit is permitted. Thus, the claim sought by the plaintiff in the lawsuit in this case was confirmed as individual rehabilitation claims by the closing date of argument

Unless there is any assertion as to whether there was a decision to authorize the repayment plan or that there was a decision to authorize the repayment plan, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.