1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 28,673,531 and KRW 6,857,571 of the above money to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 12, 2001, the Defendant subscribed to KB National Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “National Card”) as a credit card member, and delayed payment of the amount of use while being used with a credit card at that time.

B. On February 25, 2003, the National Card notified the Defendant of the transfer of the credit card payment claim against the Defendant to the Defendant to the Orlmon Mutual Aid Company. On October 25, 2006, the Orlmon Mutual Savings Bank notified the Defendant of the transfer of the said claim while transferring the said claim to Solomon Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Solomon Mutual Savings Bank”), and on December 10, 2009, the Solomon Mutual Savings Bank again transferred the said claim to the Plaintiff on December 10, 2009 (hereinafter “the instant credit card payment claim”), and the Plaintiff to whom the authority to notify the transfer of claim by Solomon Mutual Savings Bank was delegated to the Defendant on May 4, 2010.

C. As of December 28, 2016, the instant claim for the transfer-price remains in KRW 6,857,571 as principal, KRW 21,815,960 as of December 28, 201, and KRW 28,673,531 as of interest and delay damages, and the overdue interest rate is 17% per annum.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence No. 9-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the determination as to the cause of the claim (1) The defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum to the plaintiff within the scope of overdue interest rate from December 29, 2016 to the day of full payment, as to the above 28,673,531 won and the principal amount of 6,857,571 won among the above 28,673,531 won and the plaintiff who acquired the claim of this case in succession from the national card, barring any special circumstance.

(2) As to this, the defendant alleged that he did not have prepared a written application for issuance of the national card, but according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7, Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 and 9-2, and the whole arguments, the defendant's statement and the whole purport of arguments is as follows.