Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointor jointly and severally with the Plaintiff 12,240.

A. On December 1, 2006, the Appointor entered into an entrustment management contract with the Dong Asia Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SP”) to operate the 18 tons of car trucks (C) on consignment by the non-party company, and to pay the non-party company every month management fees, taxes, public charges, and comprehensive insurance premiums, and the defendant (Appointed) jointly and severally guaranteed the Appointor’s obligations under the above contract on the same day.

B. The Selection concluded the above contract and operated the said car truck until April 2012, and did not pay to the non-party company a total of KRW 12,240,750, including land admission management expenses, taxes and public charges, etc.

C. Meanwhile, on September 7, 2012, Nonparty Company transferred to the Plaintiff the claim amounting to KRW 12,240,750, such as the above-mentioned management expenses for the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed party, and notified the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed party of the above transfer on October 7, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 12,240,750, and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from April 20, 2013 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the instant complaint.

B. As to this, Defendant (Appointed Party) did not comply with the calculation of management expenses of the non-party company, and argued that the non-party company would bring the existing number plate of the above car truck and would make a new number plate, and it did not present to the present, and thus, did not have any evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion by the defendant (Appointed Party) is without merit without further review.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party is justified.