1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim and the plaintiff's successor's claim are dismissed, respectively.

3. The plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 16, 1995, the Defendant entered into a credit card loan agreement (hereinafter “the instant agreement”) with the Plaintiff, a credit card company, setting the lending period of KRW 5 million at 12 months, repayment date on June 25, 1996, interest rate of 17% per annum, and 22% per annum.

B. Since the defendant left the United States with his family on March 28, 1996, he continued to reside in the United States without entering the Republic of Korea.

C. On July 19, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the claim for loans under this Court No. 2001Da358599, Nov. 7, 2001 (hereinafter “the judgment of the first instance judgment of this case”) that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 24.5% per annum from October 27, 2001 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment of this case”) with the purport that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 12,05,083 and the amount of KRW 5,000,000, which is calculated at the rate of 24.5% per annum from October 27, 2001 to the date of full payment.” The written complaint and the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court of this case were served to the Defendant by service

On May 13, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred the claim for loans under the instant contract (hereinafter “claim for loans of this case”) to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff. On June 16, 2005, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor notified the Defendant of the fact of transferring the claims upon delegation by the Plaintiff.

E. On May 17, 2011, in order to interrupt the extinctive prescription of the loan claims extended pursuant to the judgment of the first instance court of this case, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor filed a lawsuit claiming the acquisition of the loan (Seoul District Court Decision 2011Da36081, hereinafter “instant transfer claim”) with the Defendant and received a favorable judgment on December 28, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 26, 2012.

F. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor conducted compulsory execution against the Defendant based on the judgment of the instant transfer money lawsuit, and the Defendant, who became aware of the existence of the instant transfer money lawsuit in the process, became aware of the existence thereof, on April 11, 2018.