1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance cited in the judgment is the same as the ground of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following additional determination, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination as to the Defendants’ assertion

A. As to the assertion that the damage was fully compensated, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff received KRW 37,455,000 from Defendant C (i.e., KRW 18,000 according to the lease deposit’s agreement on October 31, 2014) and additionally acquired KRW 24,228,000 through the sale of the instant vehicle, thereby recovering KRW 61,683,000 from the Plaintiff’s 60,90,000 and KRW 61,683,000 from the Plaintiff’s 37,45,000 from Defendant C, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim was unjust.

However, even if the Plaintiff recovered above the price of the instant vehicle as alleged by the Defendants, such circumstance does not obstruct the Plaintiff’s claim for late termination penalty, etc. under the instant lease agreement, and thus, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is rejected.

B. As to the assertion that the calculation of overdue rent, etc. was erroneous, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the rent for five months was not overdue until April 4, 2014 (the date of termination of the instant lease contract). However, according to the instant lease contract, the Defendants were obliged to pay the rent for one thousand five hundred and forty-eight,363 won (the date of termination of the instant lease contract) or one thousand,649,212 (the amount after December 2013). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants paid the rent for five months, and there is no evidence to support that the Defendants paid the rent until the date of termination of the instant lease contract (the Plaintiff asserted that there was no rent paid once by the Plaintiff).

(2) The Defendants asserted that it is unreasonable to assess the interest rate again with the total amount of the unpaid rental fees and the overdue interest accrued therefrom as principal.

However, the plaintiff's overdue interest.