1. The defendant's District Court Decision 2004Gadan25420 against the plaintiff has an executory power over the credit card use fee case.

1. The judgment of October 29, 2004 that "the defendant (the plaintiff of this case) shall pay to the plaintiff (the defendant of this case) 21,779,728 won and 21,39,800 won with interest of 24% per annum from February 26, 2004 to the day of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"). The fact that the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 23, 2004 does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized by the whole purport of entry and pleading of evidence No. 3.

2. The defendant asserts to the effect that the lawsuit of this case against the defendant is unlawful since he transferred the judgment amount claim based on the judgment of this case to the Credit Counseling and Recovery Fund.

In a case where a claim on the title of execution is transferred and satisfies the requirements for setting up against the assignee, the standing to be a party to execution is changed to the assignee, and the assignee becomes final and conclusive as the assignee according to the fact that the assignee succeeds to the execution clause. Thus, the existing executive titles against the transferor shall be extinguished due to the grant of the succeeding execution clause (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da23889, Feb. 1, 2008). In the absence of proof of assertion as to the fact that the Credit Counseling and Recovery Fund was granted the succeeding execution clause as to the judgment of this case, the existing executive titles against the defendant still exist. Thus, the defendant's defense prior to the merits shall not be justified without

3. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, it is clear that the claim under the judgment of this case was due on November 23, 2004, which was the date when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, and that the claim of this case was already due until May 29, 2015, asserting that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case with the purport that the prescription has expired, and ten years have passed since the due date.

4. Thus, we conclude that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.