2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On March 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract for logistics business (hereinafter “instant contract”) with Nonparty B (C representative), and on December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff incurred transportation commission of KRW 130,526,485 in total by performing logistics transport business under the said contract.

B. B repaid KRW 44,315,402 in total by December 28, 2013 as the payment of transportation commission under the instant contract.

C. Meanwhile, the letter of payment for KRW 62,56,786 prepared on November 1, 2013 regarding the obligation to pay the transportation commission under the instant contract (hereinafter “instant letter”) and the letter of repayment for KRW 71,767,863 dated December 17, 2013 (hereinafter “instant plan”) contain the Defendant’s signature and seal on each bottom, and are written under which “limited to the establishment of a vehicle collateral security” is written.

After the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant provided one of the four vehicles owned by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as collateral, and the voluntary auction on the said vehicle (Seoul District Court D) is in progress.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through Gap 6, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion is in accordance with the letter and plan of this case that the defendant is obligated to provide four vehicles owned by the defendant as a surety to secure the obligation of transportation fees under the contract of this case. Since the defendant does not perform the obligation to provide the three vehicles as a collateral, it is jointly and severally liable with B to pay KRW 2.5 million equivalent to the value of the three vehicles.

B. The fact that the Defendant agreed to provide the Defendant-owned vehicle as a physical collateral for the obligation to pay the transportation fee under the instant contract does not conflict between the parties, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant provided the Plaintiff as a collateral for all the remaining three vehicles in addition to one vehicle provided to the Plaintiff.