1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor KRW 3,827,977.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 23, 2002, the Defendant concluded a credit card use contract with C Co., Ltd. and received credit cards.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant credit card payment claim”). B.

C Company changed its trade name to the Plaintiff on December 3, 2002.

On December 12, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred the instant card price claim to D Co., Ltd., and D Co., Ltd., which was delegated with the power to notify the assignment of claims by the Plaintiff, sent a notice of the assignment of claims to the Defendant’s domicile on March 23, 2009.

C. D Company changed its trade name to E.

On January 26, 2018, Co., Ltd. transferred the instant credit card price claim to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, who was delegated with the power to notify the assignment of claims by Co., Ltd., Ltd., sent the notice of the assignment of claims to the Defendant’s domicile on March 29, 2018.

On the other hand, as of March 5, 2004, the sum of principal and interest of the credit card price claim of this case as of March 5, 2004 is KRW 3,827,977 (principal KRW 2,489,80). The delayed damage rate of the above credit is 28.8% per annum.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the whole purport of the pleading [the defendant's evidence No. 4 (Written Application for Credit Card Subscription)], and there is no evidence to acknowledge it, although it is alleged that F, the defendant's seat, was made by stealing the defendant's name]

2. The plaintiff's claim and the succeeding intervenor's claim are valid as ordinary co-litigation, and the court shall render a judgment on both the plaintiff's claim and the succeeding intervenor's claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da16729, Jul. 9, 2004) and the fact that the plaintiff transferred the credit card payment claim of this case to D Co., Ltd. after the judgment of the first instance was rendered by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is more effective.