1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts below the acknowledged facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10.

(1) The Plaintiff’s trade name was “foreign exchange card Co., Ltd.”, and on December 1, 2014, the Plaintiff’s trade name was changed to “one card Co., Ltd.” by absorbing the ice card Co., Ltd.

(2) The Defendant entered into a contract for the use of each credit card with the Plaintiff and the ice Card Co., Ltd., and delayed payment of the credit card price while using the credit card.

(3) The Plaintiff applies the rate of delay damages per annum of 24% between the Defendant and the Defendant within the scope of the initial rate of delay damages.

(4) The Plaintiff’s credit card-use claim and damages for delay claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant claim”) are KRW 15,714,120, 602,189, 96,231, 77,79,231, 79, principal of foreign exchange card, 7,798,271, 156,954, 115,684, and late payment charge as of August 31, 2015.

B. According to the above facts finding, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the rate of delay damages from September 1, 2015 to the date of full payment, for the principal and delay damages of the instant claim (15,714,120 won, 602,129 won, 96,231 won, 798, 798, 271 won, 156,954 won, 115,684 won), and for each principal amount of KRW 23,512,391 (15,714,120 won, 7,798,271 won).

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant is one of its importers of electronic commerce, and was rendered a judgment of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da1070635, which was brought against the Defendant, against the Defendant (the Defendant filed a petition for retrial with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da519). The Defendant is registered as the non-performance of obligation based on the above judgment.