1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant is against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 4,997,497 and 1,191.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 30, 1996, the Defendant entered into a credit card transaction agreement with Choung-Hy Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Yung-Hy Bank”) and subsequently used the credit card with the credit card and delayed payment.

B. On March 30, 2002, the Choung Bank transferred the instant claims to the Plaintiff on October 6, 2009, respectively, on the following grounds: (a) on March 30, 2002, the said claims against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant claims”) to a limited liability company specializing in the Chylburburon, the Primary Asset Securitization System; and (b) on November 22, 2010, the said claims were transferred to the Defendant.

C. On February 17, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the instant claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the claim on April 17, 2015.

As of May 21, 2013, the instant claim remains in the aggregate of KRW 1,191,359, overdue interest and delay damages, KRW 3,806,138, and KRW 4,997,497, as of May 21, 2013, and the interest rate for delay under a credit card credit card credit transaction agreement or a bank credit transaction agreement with payment banks is 24.5% per annum.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff-Successor Intervenor who acquired the instant claim in succession, the amount of KRW 4,997,497 as well as the amount of KRW 1,191,359 as above, calculated at the rate of 24.5% per annum from May 22, 2013 to the date of full payment, which is the following day of the above basic date.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim by the plaintiff succeeding intervenor is justified, and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor succeeded to the trial at the trial, and the plaintiff withdraws from the trial at the trial, so the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stated in the Disposition No. 1, and it is so decided as per Disposition.