1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff KRW 1,66,512 and 1,246.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant concluded a credit card use agreement with D Co., Ltd. and used credit purchase, cash services, etc., and at the time of March 26, 2009, 5,535,164 won (principal 5,115,51 won, hereinafter “instant claim”).

B. The E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) to whom D Co., Ltd. transferred the instant claim from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant in respect of the claim for acquisition of the instant claim (Seoul District Court 2009 Ghana58), and the Defendant in the said lawsuit “Defendant” paid to E damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from March 27, 2009 to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 5,535,164, and KRW 5,15,51, respectively, from March 27, 2009 to the date of full payment. The decision of performance recommendation was finalized on May 12, 2009.

C. Since then, the instant claim was transferred in sequence to the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, and the fact of assignment was notified to the Defendant at the time of each assignment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff who received the claim of this case in succession within the scope of the amount of claim established by the decision of performance recommendation, as requested by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit in this case was filed more than five years after the defendant lost the benefit of time, and that the statute of limitations for commercial claims in this case had expired before the lawsuit was filed.

However, the extinctive prescription of the claim of this case is applied to 10 years from the date when the decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive pursuant to Article 165(2) and (1) of the Civil Act, and it is apparent that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case before the expiration of the extinctive prescription, so

3. Accordingly, the defendant seeks to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.