1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 32,029,868 as well as KRW 11,520,096 among them, from October 12, 2015 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 14, 2005, the Defendant traded a credit card by obtaining a credit card from a foreign exchange bank, such as the purchase of goods and services, and the use of cash services.

On December 10, 2010, the foreign exchange bank transferred all of the credit card payment claims against the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was entrusted with the notification of the assignment of claims by the foreign exchange bank and notified the Defendant of the transfer on May 4, 201.

B. The defendant received a loan from Daegu Bank on September 24, 2002.

In addition, on October 10, 2002, the defendant issued a credit card from the Daegu Bank and traded credit cards such as the purchase of goods and services, and the use of cash services.

On June 21, 2013, Daegu Bank transferred all of its claims to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was delegated with the power to notify the assignment of claims by Daegu Bank and notified the Defendant of the transfer on June 26, 2014.

C. As of October 11, 2015, each of the Defendant’s above obligations is as listed in the following table:

The Plaintiff is applying damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum below the minimum of the rates applied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and the financial institution that transfers the claim with respect to damages for delay on the acquired claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap 6, Gap evidence 10-1, 2

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from October 12, 2015 to the date of full payment, barring any special circumstance.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. In the individual rehabilitation case, the defendant asserted that the rehabilitation plan was authorized in the individual rehabilitation case, and even if the rehabilitation plan was discontinued thereafter, he asserts that the defendant is liable for repayment according to the authorized amount.

Gap, A11, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 14, 14.