1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Bank for Interest, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mediation Bank”)

A) Around April 7, 2000, the Defendant entered into a credit card use agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant credit card use agreement”).

(2) On December 202, 2002, the Defendant issued a credit card from the Daese Bank under the above contract and used the credit card. (3) On December 20, 2002, the Gaese Bank acquired the credit card from the Gaese Bank. On December 5, 2008, the Gaese Asset Management Specialized Co., Ltd., Korea Asset Management Loan Co., Ltd., Korea Asset Management Loan Co., Ltd., Ltd., on October 8, 2013, and on April 17, 2015, the Gaese Loan Co., Ltd., Ltd., transferred to the Plaintiff claims under the instant credit card use agreement.

3) As of June 25, 2016, the amount of claims under the instant credit card license agreement is KRW 10,331,639 (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 2,352,748,791) (i.e., KRW 7,978,891). Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay for KRW 10,331,639 and the principal amount of KRW 2,352,748.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant credit card use contract was concluded by misappropriation of the Defendant’s name. 2) Claim under the instant credit card use contract was extinguished by the lapse of the five-year commercial prescription period.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine whether the instant credit card use contract was concluded between Heung Bank and the Defendant.

The defendant asserts that the evidence No. 1 (Written Application for Credit Card Entry) was forged by B, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the evidence No. 1 (Written Application for Credit Card Entry). Thus, the evidence No. 1 cannot be used as evidence.

In addition, the remaining evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the credit card use contract of this case was concluded between Heung Bank and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, it is true.