1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (formerly: C Co., Ltd.) merged D Co., Ltd. on December 01, 201, and the Defendant obtained credit cards from D Co., Ltd. and used them.

B. As of December 13, 2018, the Defendant did not pay credit card bills after January 27, 2014, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the principal for using credit cards is KRW 7,99,423.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the principal amount of the credit card use price of KRW 7,99,423 and delay damages.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff agreed to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum in cases where arrears occurred at the time when the credit card use contract was concluded with the Defendant. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay interest equivalent to the fee for the card loan as claimed by the Plaintiff, or that they agreed to apply the rate of 20% per annum in cases of overdue payment of the fee for the card loan

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premiseding that there was an agreement on commission and damages for delay is without merit, without examining any further.

However, in cases where one of the parties asserts that there exists a monetary loan for consumption and seeks payment of interest based on the agreed rate, barring any special circumstance, damages for delay for the period after the maturity date of the loan claim should be deemed as claiming damages for delay based on the agreed rate, and even if the agreed rate is not recognized, the purport of claiming damages for delay at the statutory rate can be deemed to be included (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da22407, Sept. 26, 2017). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case also