1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, with respect to KRW 8,261,467 against the Plaintiff, from November 5, 2006 to October 7, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 30, 1991, the Defendant concluded a credit card membership agreement with the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Housing and Commercial Bank”) and used the credit card.

The defendant started to pay the card price in arrears from March 8, 1996.

In March 31, 2005, the credit card payment obligation of the Defendant in arrears is KRW 8,261,467.

(hereinafter referred to as “first claim”). (b)

On November 11, 1993, the Defendant concluded a credit card membership agreement with the ELD Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “ELD Card”) and used it with the credit card issued.

The defendant started to pay the card price in arrears from October 1996.

In March 31, 2005, the credit card payment obligation of the Defendant in arrears is KRW 1,796,000.

(hereinafter referred to as “second claim”). (c)

On May 13, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired each of the above claims, and on June 16, 2005, notified the Defendant of each assignment of claims by content-certified mail. D.

The overdue interest rate determined by the Plaintiff is 17% per annum.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. According to the above facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff, the transferee, as claimed by the Plaintiff (= KRW 8,261,467, KRW 1,796,00).

(The plaintiff claimed only damages for delay). 3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription has expired five years since the date on which the claim occurred.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s determination as to the claim 1 did not pay the credit card bills issued by the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank from March 8, 1996, and the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of five years thereafter is apparent.

However, considering the whole purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 6.