1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall substitute the plaintiff for KRW 44,549,052 and its KRW 25,101,375.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. loaned credit cards to the Defendant as indicated below, and the sum of the principal and interest claims as of November 26, 2013 is KRW 44,549,052.

Serial 16,301,375 10,02,324 26,303,699 2,200,000 2,744,95 4,94,953 Samsung Credit Card 6,600,700 6,700,358 130,300,358 25,101,375 19,477,674,54,549,055 3 Samsung Credit Card 6,600,000 6,600,000 6,358 13,30,358 25,101,375 19,47,674,549,052

B. Meanwhile, Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. transferred the above principal and interest claim against the Defendant to Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., and the said Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. transferred its trade name from the Credit Counseling and Recovery Fund on July 1, 2010 to the National Dental Fund on March 28, 2013.

On December 3, 2010, the above principal and interest claims were transferred to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant thereof.

C. In addition, on June 21, 2013, Samsung Card Co., Ltd. transferred each of the above principal and interest claims to the Plaintiff on the 28th of the same month, and notified the Defendant on December 31, 2012.

C. The interest rate for delay on each of the above principal and interest obligations shall be 17% per annum.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 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 at the rate of 17% per annum, which is the interest rate for delay damages, from November 27, 2013 to the date of full payment, with respect to the total of KRW 44,549,052 in total and the total of principal KRW 25,101,375 in total.

B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant alleged that each of the above principal and interest obligations was caused by the fraud, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked.