2. Defendant Neng-ro, Inc.

A. On February 24, 2012, Defendant Neow Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Neow”) changed the vehicle price of the automobiles indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”) between the Defendant Chion Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Chion Capital”) and Chion Capital Co., Ltd. on July 1, 2016; hereinafter both before and after the change, the vehicle price was 154,90,000,000, the deposit and residual value were 49,725,700, the lease fee was 3,477,40,40, the two times to 444,438,400, the lease period was 44444,40, the lease agreement was concluded at the end of each of the lease agreement, and the lease agreement was purchased at the end of each of the lease agreement (hereinafter “the lease agreement”).

B. On May 25, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 200 million to Defendant Neow on June 22, 2012 at the due date; and (b) Defendant Neow repaid KRW 100 million out of the above loans until January 4, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1, 2, and Gap evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On February 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the cause of the claim: (a) where the Plaintiff could not repay the said loan to the Plaintiff by the expiration of the term of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant Niopip promised to transfer the name of the instant automobile to the Plaintiff by payment in kind; and (b) Defendant Niopip did not pay KRW 100,000 out of the loan up to the present.

On the other hand, Defendant Neofol paid all the lease fees during the lease term of this case, and the lease contract of this case terminated on October 24, 2015, Defendant Neofol had the right to purchase the instant motor vehicle in KRW 49,725,700, which is equivalent to its residual value, from Defendant Neofol Capital.

I would like to say.

However, it is true.