1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. As to KRW 6,197,878 and its KRW 3,115,389 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant on February 20, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant concluded a credit card transaction agreement with the National Credit Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “National Credit Card Co., Ltd.”) and received and used a credit card with the National Credit Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “National Card”).

The credit card price of KRW 3,127,49 was overdue.

B. On April 15, 2003, the national card transferred the above credit card payment claim against the Defendant to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the credit card payment claim. On October 26, 2006, the Orlmon Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Solomon Mutual Savings Bank”) transferred the above claim to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim. On June 11, 2010, the Solomon Mutual Savings Bank transferred the above claim to the Plaintiff (Slomon Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. prior to the change) and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim with the delegation of the notification authority from the Solomon Mutual Savings Bank.

C. On October 22, 2012, the Defendant paid part of the principal amount of the above bonds, and on February 19, 2016, there remain KRW 6,197,878, the sum of the principal amount of the above bonds and KRW 3,115,389, overdue interest and KRW 3,082,489.

On the other hand, the overdue interest rate set by the Plaintiff within the scope of the overdue interest rate on the purchased bonds is 17% per annum.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the assignee of the credit card purchase-price claim, the principal of KRW 6,17,878 and the principal of KRW 3,115,389, the delay interest rate of KRW 17% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate of the Plaintiff from February 20, 2016 to the date of full payment, from February 20, 2016.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling this and ordering the payment of the above money.