1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant's 35,255,636 won and 18,060,569 won among them shall be decided April 3, 2020 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts recognized;

A. C around May 18, 2009, entered into a credit card agreement with the Defendant and issued a credit card to the Defendant under the application of the individual credit card terms and conditions, and the interest rate on delay under the agreement is 16% per annum.

B. Around July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred the entire credit card payment claim against the Defendant of the said bank to C, and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the credit card payment claim around October 2017.

C. The Defendant failed to perform its obligation to pay credit card bills under the above agreement, and thus, the unpaid principal amount as of September 28, 2017 is KRW 18,060,569, and overdue interest amounting to KRW 17,195,067.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1-4 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the sum total of KRW 35,255,636 of the principal and interest of the credit card payment and delay damages, barring special circumstances.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the five-year extinctive prescription under the Commercial Act shall apply to the instant credit card payment claim, and the Defendant’s final date of using the credit card is around October 1, 201, and the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order on May 30, 2018, which was five years after the said credit card payment claim, and that the said claim has already become extinct.

First, according to the result of this court's inquiry into the financial transaction information inquiry about C, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant remitted the total of KRW 13,294,551 in the form of credit card payment and the interest on ice-free deposits, etc. over 19 times during the period from January 11, 2012 to August 30, 2013.

On the other hand, it can be said that the statute of limitations has been interrupted because the defendant's repayment of debts, like the above facts, indicated that the defendant who is the party to whom the statute of limitations benefits exists, recognizes the existence of the debt, and thus, it can be said that the statute of limitations has been interrupted.