1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Defendant entered into a credit card transaction agreement with Choungung Bank Co., Ltd. and was issued a credit card on March 15, 199.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by the Defendant at the time when the credit card was issued by Choung Bank. The Defendant did not pay the credit card payment to the Defendant. On March 15, 2005, Hyundai Switzerland Mutual Savings Bank transferred its claim against the Defendant to the Plaintiff on December 12, 2008. As Hyundai Switzerland Mutual Savings Bank transferred its claim against the Plaintiff on December 12, 2008, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal and interest of the credit card payment amount of KRW 10,378,709 and delay damages for the principal amount of KRW 8,573,757.

B. The defendant alleged that he did not use the above credit card.

Even if the Plaintiff’s claim was made against the Defendant, the statute of limitations has expired since the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant of the Daiung Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was acquired by him.

3. The reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1 through 11 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant used the credit card issued to the Cho Heung Bank as a stock company and then failed to pay the credit card price, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Even if the Defendant used a credit card issued as the Defendant’s bank and did not pay the credit card price in arrears, it shall be deemed that the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant in 199. As such, the five-year statute of limitations under Article 64 of the Commercial Act is applied as a commercial claim, and it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was filed on January 27, 2010, which was more than five years after the lawsuit in this case was filed, the statute of limitations has already expired prior to the institution of this case, and the Defendant’s claim in this case is related thereto.