1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant is against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 22,956.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 2006, in the Seo-gu Incheon District E Hospital (Representative Defendant), the Bank issued a letter of credit card for corporate members (public card) and one credit card for corporate members on March 28, 2007, respectively (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant credit card”).

B. On November 3, 2011, the Industrial Bank of Korea transferred the instant credit card payment claim on the credit card stated in the said paragraph (hereinafter “instant credit card payment claim”) to the Plaintiff (F-limited company). The Plaintiff transferred the instant credit card payment claim to G on July 31, 2015, and the Plaintiff transferred the instant credit card payment claim to the succeeding intervenor on May 1, 2016, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim at each time of transfer.

C. Meanwhile, as of September 4, 2014, the sum of the principal and interest of the instant credit card payment claim as of September 4, 2014 is KRW 22,956,561 (i.e., principal amount of KRW 14,196,03; KRW 1,269,737; overdue interest; KRW 7,490,821); and the interest rate on delay is 18% per annum.

(Grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Gap evidence 8, 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. On June 21, 2017, the succeeding intervenor’s assertion that: (a) the Defendant received the notice of transfer of the instant credit card payment claim on June 21, 2017; and (b) the succeeding execution clause of the first instance judgment on June 25, 2018; and (c) knew that the judgment of the first instance was proceeding by service by public notice; (d) the Defendant’s subsequent appeal filed on August 6, 2018, which had passed two weeks thereafter,

B. (1) In a case where a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant falls under the case where the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and falls under the case where he/she was unable to complete the appeal within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.