1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment on the cause of the claim was based on the fact that foreign exchange credit card company had a credit card payment claim of KRW 1,474,900 against the defendant, the credit card payment claim of the above credit card is a limited liability company specializing in the friendly securitization on April 30, 2003, a mutual savings bank specializing in the friendly securitization on March 31, 2008, a stock company AM lending was assigned on December 28, 201, and each of the above assignment of claims was notified to the plaintiff on September 26, 2012, and each of the above assignment of claims was notified to the defendant on September 25, 201, and the credit card payments that were not paid as of September 25, 2012 are 5,535,51 won (principal principal,474,900 won) (hereinafter referred to as the "claim of this case") or can be acknowledged by the purport of oral proceedings as a whole under subparagraphs 1 through 5 and the purport of oral proceedings.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the aforementioned unpaid credit card user fee and damages for delay thereof.

The defendant's defense regarding the defendant's defense was extinguished by the lapse of the five-year extinctive prescription period for commercial claims.

Judgment

The claim in this case is a commercial claim arising from commercial activities of a credit card company and the extinctive prescription period is five years pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act.

The credit card use price shall be extinctive prescription from the commencement of delinquency, and there is no data as to the defendant's delinquency of the credit card use price from the time, but at least the foreign exchange credit card company transferred the credit of this case to a friendly securitization specialized company on April 30, 2003.

Inasmuch as the instant claim was filed on September 1, 2015, which had been the past five years elapsed since the instant payment order had been filed on September 1, 2015, it shall be deemed that the statute of limitations had already expired before the instant payment order was filed, and thus, the Defendant’s defense has merit.

The conclusion is.