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. The Defendant, on November 13, 2001, issued a credit card issued by Choung Bank on the part of November 13, 2001 and used the credit card from that time, but did not pay the credit card price.

B. On December 10, 2010, Hoi Bank Co., Ltd. transferred to the Defendant a credit card user-price claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant credit card user-price claim”) to Solomon Mutual Savings Bank, Solomon Mutual Savings Bank, Inc., respectively, to the Plaintiff on December 10, 2010.

C. As of September 1, 2011, the principal and interest of the instant credit card user-price claim amounting to KRW 8,655,678 is the principal and interest of the instant credit card user-price claim amounting to KRW 2,832,156.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the total sum of the principal and interest of the claim to the plaintiff who acquired the credit card use-price claim of this case and damages for delay on the principal.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s defense had been issued a credit card from the Choung Bank to December 2, 2002, and used the credit card payment claim of this case, the five-year extinctive prescription was expired.

B. According to the evidence No. 2-2 of the judgment, the claim for the use price of the credit card of this case appears to have been in arrears on June 30, 2003 (or was in arrears on or before March 4, 2004). The above claim is a commercial claim and the five-year extinctive prescription period under Article 64 of the Commercial Act is applied as a commercial claim, and the plaintiff's claim for the payment order of this case was filed on September 2, 201, which was more than five years after the above five-year period. Thus, the claim for the use price of the credit card of this case was already extinguished before the application for the payment order of this case, and the defendant's defense on this is with merit.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed.