1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. In accordance with the succession participation by this court, the defendant is against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 3,901.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 6, 2000, A Co., Ltd. (formerly changed: D; hereinafter “A”) concluded a credit card use agreement with the Defendant and issued a credit card to the Defendant.

B. On May 13, 2005, upon the Defendant’s default of credit card payment, A transferred credit card payment claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant claim”) to E Limited Company, and E Limited Company notified the Defendant of the transfer under Article 7(1) of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act on June 16, 2005.

C. On January 26, 2018, E Limited Company transferred the instant claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor to whom the notification authority was delegated notified the Defendant of the said transfer. D.

On the other hand, after the continuation of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff was incorporated by division A on April 1, 2013, and comprehensively succeeded to the status and rights of the parties to the contract to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the claim amount of this case to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor, the final transferee of the claim of this case. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant who transferred the claim of this case is without merit.

Furthermore, according to the purport of the evidence No. 2-1, No. 2 and the entire pleadings, E limited liability company can only calculate and manage the principal and interest of the instant claim as principal 3,901,262 won as of December 24, 2013 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum, which is the agreed damages for delay from April 1, 2005, as of April 1, 2005, and there is no evidence to support the existence of claims for the portion exceeding the above amount.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor KRW 3,901,262 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum, which is the agreed damages for delay, and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claims in excess of this is acceptable.