1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 28, 1997, the Defendant concluded a credit card use contract with the Japanese Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”), but did not pay the principal amount of KRW 5,091,370 as of May 31, 2003 and interest.

B. On September 26, 2003, the non-party bank transferred the above credit card user claim against the defendant to the promotional mutual savings bank, and notified the defendant of the transfer of the above credit card user claim to the defendant on November 3 of the same year. On June 15, 2011, the promotional mutual savings bank transferred the above claim to the plaintiff again and notified the defendant of the transfer of the above claim to the defendant on July 28, 201.

C. The Defendant’s obligation to use the said credit card amount is KRW 15,447,867, including the principal amount of KRW 5,091,370 as of September 9, 201, and interest KRW 10,356,497.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above KRW 15,447,867 and the principal of KRW 5,091,370 among them to the day of complete payment, barring special circumstances.

B. Accordingly, the defendant's defense that the statute of limitations has expired five years after the repayment date of the above credit card use price claim.

On the other hand, since the above credit card usage-price claim constitutes a claim arising from the commercial activity of the non-party bank, the five-year statute of limitations applies pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Since the defendant had already been in arrears as of May 31, 2003, the above credit is deemed to have arrived at the due date at the latest. Since the fact that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit five years after the above date is apparent in the record, the above credit is already extinguished prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

In this regard, the plaintiff does not resist the interruption of prescription, and it is recognized that there has been any interruption of prescription.