1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 12, 2012, the Defendant issued one credit card (hereinafter “instant credit card”) after concluding a contract to use a credit card on the 24th day of each month by newly applying to the Plaintiff for the issuance of “New Ringsl Loss Insurance Co., Ltd.” to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the standard contractual terms and conditions on personal credit card holders, where a member fails to pay the credit card use fee on the date of settlement because the balance of deposits and the amount of loan falls short of the amount of settlement, the member must calculate the number of days in arrears from the day following the date of settlement to the date of

(Paragraph 4). (c)

By September 2013, the Defendant made a normal settlement of credit card bills and began to pay the credit card bills from October 2013, and on March 28, 2014, the overdue amount as of March 28, 2014 reaches KRW 2,356,082 (= Principal KRW 2,290,595, interest KRW 61,317,00).

The overdue interest rate of the Plaintiff's Bar Card is 29% per annum after November 1, 2003.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition】: Gap's evidence 1 through 4, 20 through 25, Eul's evidence 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 29% per annum, which is the agreed delay damages rate, from March 29, 2014 to the date of full payment, with the Plaintiff’s claim as to KRW 2,290,595, which is the principal of KRW 2,356,082, and the principal of the credit card use amount.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the total amount of the credit card of this case is KRW 4,793,391, and rather, the defendant paid the amount in excess of KRW 1,172,650 as KRW 5,96,041, and thus, the defendant does not bear the obligation to pay the amount of the credit card using.

However, the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone are insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, there is no other evidence to prove it.