1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The decision of the court of first instance is in accordance with paragraph 1.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 30, 1997, the Defendant subscribed to the new bank as a credit card member and used the credit card around that time. The Defendant’s credit card usage claim against the Defendant of the new bank (small-sum credit loan claim) was transferred to the Plaintiff on June 21, 2013 through C&B Investment Loan Co., Ltd.

B. In addition, on March 20, 2009, the Defendant subscribed as a credit card holder and used a credit card after being issued with the credit card. On June 28, 2013, the instant credit card was transferred to the Plaintiff the credit card user’s claim.

C. On June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff received delegation of the notification authority from each of the above transferor, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of each of the above claims, and on December 14, 2016, the balance and interest of the claims that the Plaintiff acquired by transfer are as listed below.

The sum of the balance of the transferring financial institution (won) and the sum of interest (source) shall be 10,52, 292, 39,643, 507, 507, 507, 507, 79, 2073, 300, 464, 039, 10, 537, 339, 12,625, 592 48, 107, 546, 60, 73, 138

D. Meanwhile, the overdue interest rate determined by the Plaintiff within the scope of the overdue interest rate on the purchased bonds is 17% per annum.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 60,733,138, and the amount of KRW 12,625,592, which is the principal balance, to the Plaintiff, 17% per annum from December 15, 2016, which is the day following the date of calculating interest, to the day of full payment, barring special circumstances.

B. First of all, the defendant's argument 1) argues that since B, one of his former former wife, forged documents under the name of the defendant and obtained credit cards under the name of the defendant, the defendant is not liable for the above amount of credit, but Eul's evidence Nos. 4 through 6 (including each number.).