Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant and the Intervenor succeeding to the Defendant.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a credit card membership agreement with the Defendant and obtained a credit card from the Defendant. On July 13, 2009, the total amount of principal and interest payable as of the credit card price as of July 13, 2009 was KRW 2,173,515 (principal principal, KRW 2,045,440, overdue interest, etc.).

B. On July 16, 2009, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming payment of the credit card use price (hereinafter “the instant card price”) with the Suwon District Court Sejong District Court KRW 2009j.1098, and on July 16, 2009, the Defendant issued a payment order order stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 2,173,515 and KRW 2,045,440 per annum from July 14, 2009 to the date of full payment” with respect to KRW 29.9% per annum from July 14, 2009.

The above payment order was finalized as it is.

C. On June 23, 2010, the Defendant, with the title of execution, received a decision to seize and collect the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against the Bank of Korea and the stock company E by KRW 2010,3206, Suwon District Court Sejong District Court. The said decision was served on the garnishee on June 30, 2010.

On June 21, 2013, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Defendant’s Intervenor on the transfer of the instant credit card payment claim against the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s Intervenor. On June 23, 2013, the Defendant expressed its intent to notify the Plaintiff of the transfer of the credit by content-certified mail.

E. On the other hand, on January 23, 2018, the Plaintiff approved the Defendant’s succeeding Intervenor’s obligation to pay the instant card price, and prepared and delivered “written request for debt approval, adjustment, and undertaking” with the content of requesting debt adjustment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim against the defendant

A. The debt balance of the card price of this case against the Defendant by the Plaintiff’s summary of the claim is KRW 49,132, and since the date of the Plaintiff’s last use of the card was April 23, 2009, the debt of the card price of this case is five years thereafter.