1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 104,205,070 and KRW 93,617,090 among them, from August 14, 2014.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff was jointly and severally guaranteed by the defendant Eul, and on June 19, 2013, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant A, setting the lease term of 36 months, lease term of 4,08,300 won, lease term of 4,088,300 won, and annual interest rate of 8.241% (annual interest rate of 25%), and delivered the above machinery to the defendant under the above contract. However, as of June 21, 2014, the defendant A delayed the lease fee of 93,617,090 won, interest rate of 10,587,980 won, as of August 13, 2014.

According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the above overdue lease amounting to KRW 104,205,070 (i.e., the interest rate of KRW 93,617,090 on overdue lease amounting to KRW 10,587,90) and the interest rate of KRW 93,617,090 on overdue lease amounting to KRW 93,617,090 on the agreed overdue lease amount from August 14, 2014 to the date of full payment.

2. Defendant A’s assertion that Defendant A was decided on the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings in the Seoul Central District Court 2014dan10048, which included the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff asserted that the instant lawsuit claiming lease fees against the Defendant A ought to be dismissed, as it violates the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the instant rehabilitation case is legally underway, and thus, Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.