1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim and the plaintiff's successor's claim are all dismissed.

3. Action.

1. The facts of the claim are as follows: ① the Defendant joined the “E Card” membership operated by Nonparty D Co., Ltd. before June 2004 and used the card; ② as of June 15, 2004, the above D Co., Ltd. transferred the Defendant’s debt amounting to KRW 4,195,005,00 to Nonparty F Co., Ltd. as of June 15, 2004; ② the Plaintiff transferred the debt amount to Nonparty F Co., Ltd.; and again transferred the claim amount to the Plaintiff to the Intervenor’s successor; ③ the Defendant applied for individual rehabilitation at Incheon District Court 201Da21970, Nov. 7, 2012; ③ the repayment plan was authorized on November 29, 2016; and the exemption plan was granted on November 29, 2016. The above claim did not conflict between the parties, or there is no evidence to prove it contrary to the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments.

2. Determination on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff claimed the payment of the card price and its delay damages upon the instant claim, but as such, the Plaintiff transferred its claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, the claim is without merit.

(B) Although the Defendant did not expressly assert it, Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning indispensable co-litigation is applied to the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, which is equivalent to the time when an independent party participates, and the court may ex officio determine it).

Plaintiff

The above card payment claim and damages for delay claim of the succeeding intervenor are commercial claims, and it is clear that the five-year commercial prescription has already expired before the lawsuit of this case is filed. Thus, the defendant's defense pointing this out has merit, and the plaintiff's claim by the succeeding intervenor is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, all the claims of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor shall be dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant fairly, so it is so decided as per Disposition.