1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Of the instant lawsuits, the Plaintiff had a new card company.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion on June 21, 2013: ① (a) the new card company (formerly EL branch card company; hereinafter “new card”) transferred KRW 10,525,000 to the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant; (b) the claim KRW 1,122,730 against the Defendant from the lot Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “shot Capital”); and (c) the claim amounting to KRW 2,482,006 against the Defendant, respectively, from a limited liability company specializing in the set-off of the clinic branch (hereinafter “the clinic branch company”).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at a rate of 17% per annum, which is the agreement between August 3, 2015 and the day of full payment, to the Plaintiff, the total amount of principal and interest of each of the above claims (39,924,673 won + principal and interest of 5,137,380 won + principal and interest of 5,090,118 won of dives limited liability company) and the total amount of principal and interest of each of the above claims (i.e., 10,525,00 won of the new principal and interest of dives loan + 1,122,730 won of dives loan capital + principal and interest of dives limited liability company + principal and interest of 2,482,06 won of dives limited liability company).

2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the claim for the amount of money taken over by the Plaintiff from a new card or a lot Capital among the instant lawsuit

A. In full view of the purport of the argument as to the part concerning the claim for the amount of money transferred by the Plaintiff from the new card (1) No. 7, the new card was rendered to the Defendant on April 12, 2005 by filing a lawsuit against the Defendant for the credit card use price claim under the Daejeon District Court Branch of Daejeon District Court Decision 2005Gaso5850, and the judgment was rendered in favor of the Defendant on April 12, 2005. It can be recognized that the judgment became final and conclusive on April 30, 2005. The fact that the instant lawsuit was brought on August 3, 2015 after the lapse of 10 years from the said lawsuit is apparent in the record, and thus, the Plaintiff

(2) First, the Plaintiff asserts that, as the new card applied for a seizure and collection order against the Defendant prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, the extinctive prescription of the said claim was suspended.

See Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8-1 and 2.