리스채무금
1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 46,356,350 and KRW 40,112,71 among them, from November 27, 2014.
1. The facts of recognition [based on recognition: the fact that there is no dispute: Gap's evidence No. 1 (the defendant Eul claims that the signature of the defendant Eul of the contract for lease of evidence No. 1 was forged, and the seal was affixed by an stolen seal, so it is not sufficient to recognize the above assertion by the defendant Eul. Rather, according to the whole entries and arguments in the evidence No. 4 and No. 8, the defendant Eul lent the name as to the establishment of the defendant Gap corporation A (hereinafter "the defendant corporation") at the request of the defendant corporation's employee, with the defendant corporation's employee, with loans under the defendant Eul's name or joint and several sureties for the vehicle purchase contract, and the defendant Eul used the plaintiff's employee as follows.
The fact that the defendant B received a piracy regarding the contract and the joint and several sureties contract mentioned in the paragraph and confirmed it, and the defendant B is as follows:
Defendant B’s above assertion is not accepted, since it can be acknowledged that Defendant B did not raise any objection to the Plaintiff even after it became a joint and several surety for the Defendant Company’s obligations under the contract described in the paragraph.
· evidence Nos. 2 through 9, each entry of evidence No. 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
A. On January 8, 2011, the Defendant Company entered into a contract for automobile leasing (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff at least 44 months of lease term, 14,384,500 won of lease deposit, monthly rent of KRW 1,689,50, overdue interest rate of KRW 24%, estimated residual value of KRW 30,925,00 (hereinafter “the instant contract”). In the event that the customer delayed the monthly rent of the Plaintiff’s automobile lease attached to the instant contract two consecutive times or more, the Plaintiff was able to immediately perform the obligation and claim the return of the automobile after notifying the customer of the termination of the instant contract at least three business days prior to the date of termination of the contract.