1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All the claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor are dismissed.

3. The plaintiff and the defendant.

1. According to the records of this case as to the legitimacy of the appeal, when the complaint of this case against the defendant was sent to 6 Dong Dong 304, Yongsan-gu, Seoul where the defendant had his resident registration address, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on February 1, 2005 after serving the complaint of this case and the notice of the date of pleading by public notice. The above certified copy of the judgment also served on the defendant on February 12, 2005, and the service of the defendant on February 17, 2005 became effective, and the defendant became aware that the judgment of first instance was rendered on March 17, 2015. According to the above facts, the defendant could not observe the appeal period due to any cause not attributable to himself, and the defendant could not observe the appeal period since the defendant was aware of the progress and result of the lawsuit of the first instance from March 17, 2015 to March 17, 2015.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor acquired the credit card use payment claim against the Defendant of the Japanese Bank Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff again transferred the above claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, but subsequently transferred the said claim again. As of November 2, 2004, the principal amount of the credit card use payment claim as of November 2, 2004, the principal amount of the credit card use payment claim is KRW 6,264,745, the interest interest is KRW 5,124,700, and the interest rate is 18% per annum. Thus, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the final transferee of the above claim,

B. The written evidence Nos. 1 through 7 alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Japanese bank transferred the credit card use price claim against the Defendant to the Defendant to the Reorganization Bank Corporation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion premised on the acquisition of the above claim from the Japanese bank is examined as to the remainder.