1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 29, 200, the Defendant entered the Plaintiff’s credit card member and issued the card, and agreed to pay damages for delay calculated by the overdue interest rate determined by the Plaintiff Company on the unpaid card amount if a cause for overdue or overdue loss occurred.

B. A total of KRW 6,92,560, total of KRW 3,571,60 on December 17, 2015 with the Defendant’s card, and KRW 3,420,90 on the same day, and KRW 6,560 on a non-interest basis (hereinafter “the details of the instant use”); and the Defendant paid a part of the amount and did not repay the remainder after February 14, 2017.

C. As of April 14, 2017, the unpaid card amount under the Defendant’s name is KRW 3,204,30 of the principal of the settlement, KRW 1,200 of the text service usage fee, KRW 1,571,970 of the text service usage fee, KRW 17,520 of the late payment charge, KRW 3,380,991 in total.

Meanwhile, the overdue interest rate determined by the Plaintiff Company is 27.9% per annum from March 3, 2016 to February 8, 2018 and 23.9% per annum from February 8, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to pay the card amount and delay damages to the plaintiff company, unless there are special circumstances.

However, the defendant denies that the other party to the use of this case is not obliged to pay it in accordance with the attached Specialized Credit Finance Business Act and the terms and conditions of the plaintiff.

B. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the fact-finding conducted on the window of the original city of this Court, the use of this case is deemed to have been conducted through the Defendant’s card and passwords under the Defendant’s permission, and it is not determined that it was not by the Defendant’s forged card.

① The Defendant, around December 17, 2015, information on the instant card to a third party in order to obtain a loan.