1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 6, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6.

From October 2015 to November 2015, the Plaintiff leased equipment equivalent to KRW 25 million to C Limited Partnership Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”). However, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty Company on June 14, 2016 on the claim for the rent of equipment with the Daegu District Court Decision 2016No2413.

In the above lawsuit (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”), the above court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation that “the company outside the lawsuit shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25 million up to October 5, 2016, and shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the above payment date to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “decision of recommending reconciliation in this case”). The decision of recommending reconciliation in this case was finalized as it is because the Plaintiff and the non-party company did not raise an objection.

B. On February 25, 2015, the Defendant was appointed as the representative member of the non-party company and resigned on October 12, 2016, and completed the registration of resignation on October 13, 2016. At the time of the transaction of leasing equipment with the Plaintiff and the above equipment, the Defendant issued a tax invoice as the representative member of the non-party company at the time of the transaction of leasing the equipment with the Plaintiff, and decided to attend as the representative member of the non-party company on the date of

C. Meanwhile, despite the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case, the non-party company failed to perform its obligation based on the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff was the non-party company as the debtor, and the claim attachment and collection order was issued under the Daegu District Court 2016TTT202, the Daegu District Court 2016TTTT20, and the investment certificate was issued under the Daegu District Court 2016TTTT257, but the non-party company did not obtain the satisfaction of the claim under the decision of recommending reconciliation

2. Article 281(1) of the Commercial Act, which is determined.