1. As to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s KRW 28,215,00, and KRW 6,050,000 to the appointed Party C, and each of the said amounts.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party shall each recognize that the defendant holds the same claim as the stated in the claim by using equipment fees, etc., and that the defendant paid 50,000 won to the appointed party D, which is part of the equipment use fees.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff (appointed party) KRW 28,215,00 as equipment usage fee of KRW 6,050,00 as well as KRW 6,00 as to the appointed party C from December 31, 2017 to September 26, 2019, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is the day following the due date, to September 26, 2019; KRW 1,650,000, which is calculated by deducting the above repayment amount from KRW 550,000 as to the appointed party D; KRW 2,200,000 - 550,000 as to the existence or scope of the above performance obligation from December 1, 2017 to the day after the due date; and KRW 1,650,000 as well as damages for delay from the day following the due date to September 16, 2019.

On the other hand, the Appointor D asserts that its own equipment usage fee of KRW 550,00 is more than KRW 2,750,000, not KRW 2,750,000, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

2. The conclusion is that the claims of the plaintiff (Appointed) and the Appointed C are reasonable, and all of them are accepted. The claims of the Appointed D are partly accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.