1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a credit card use contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, and the Defendant received the credit card (hereinafter “instant credit card”) from the Plaintiff on September 30, 201.

B. As of March 3, 2017, KRW 5,159,867 [the amount of KRW 3,612,417 [the amount of KRW 130,430 [the interest rate per annum 24%) of cash services 1,547,450 [the amount of KRW 1,510,00 interest per annum 37,450 per annum (the interest rate per annum 26%) was overdue, as of January 31, 2017].

C. Meanwhile, around October 1, 2016, C obtained the instant credit card from the Defendant using the Defendant’s mental and physical state of intellectual disability Grade III, and obtained information related to the instant credit card, such as the password of the instant credit card from the Defendant, and used the instant credit card from around that time until December 23, 2016 by possessing the instant credit card and using it until December 23, 2016.

C was convicted of a crime of quasi-Fraud, including the contents of the preceding paragraph (the Daejeon District Court 152(1) and the Daejeon District Court 2019No365(1)) and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 17, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 8 (including virtual numbers), the facts with significant facts to the court, the purport of the whole pleadings [the defendant acknowledged the authenticity of Gap evidence No. 2, which is the cause of the contract of this case, on the date of the fifth pleading in the court of first instance, and revoked it on the date of the first pleading in the court of first instance, but there is no obvious evidence to prove that the above recognition was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, the above revocation has no effect];

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not discriminate against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant is a disabled person in accordance with the Act on Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities and Remedies for Infringement