1. The plaintiff,

A. An obligation listed in the [Attachment 7] against Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd.; and

Defendant Hank Capital.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd. and Han Capital Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff did not obtain a credit card upon entering into a credit card use contract with Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff did not conclude a loan contract with Defendant Han Capital Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 1,922,00 (attached Form 8) against Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd. as of August 23, 2013 and Defendant Han Capital did not exist.

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, denies the fact of the cause of the obligation by specifying the first claim in advance, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of assertion and burden of proof as to the requirement of legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). The fact that the plaintiff entered into a credit card service contract with the defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd. and received a credit card issued by the above defendant, or that the plaintiff received a loan of KRW 1,922,00 from the defendant Han Capital Co., Ltd. on August 23, 2013, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd. and Han Capital Co., Ltd. does not exist. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the above defendants is justified.

2. As to the plaintiff's remaining Defendants' claims

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows. The Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: Defendant Hex Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Card Co., Ltd. was merged with the Korea Exchange Card Co., Ltd., and the Korea Exchange Card Co., Ltd. was changed to one card Co., Ltd.), new card Co., Ltd., Korea Exchange Bank (which was divided into one card Co., Ltd.), Hyundai Card Co., Ltd., lot Card Co., Ltd.