1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000, and Defendant A with respect thereto from February 4, 2014; and Defendant B from February 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 3, 2013, at around 08:45, the Plaintiff leased the 2013-type BM C car volume to Defendant A. On the same day, Defendant A’s male and female job-friendly Defendant B driven the said vehicle to a drinking state without a driver’s license at around 21:40 on the same day, and there was an accident of falling the said vehicle into the sea in the Seogyeong Pyeong-gu, Seogyeongpo-si.

B. On November 4, 2013, the Defendants prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter of payment stating that KRW 60,000,000 of the total cost of the said vehicle shall be paid by November 30, 2013 (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 9, Eul evidence 1 (including dismissed numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the assertion on the cause of claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000,000, and as the Plaintiff seeks with respect thereto, 20% damages for delay per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint (Defendant A, February 4, 2014, and Defendant B, March 23, 2014) to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

B. As to this, Defendant A, despite the fact that the above accident vehicle did not completely lock the sea water and thereby did not inflict damage to the entire loss, had the Defendants, who were the parts of the motor vehicle, the Plaintiff, by deceiving the Defendants, who were the parts of the motor vehicle, to have taken up the instant payment note by deceiving the Plaintiff. ② Although the repair cost of the said accident vehicle does not reach KRW 60,000,000, Defendant A made the instant payment note by making an error that the repair cost of the said accident vehicle is less than KRW 60,000,000, in reliance on the Plaintiff’s horse, and thus, Defendant A made the instant payment note. Accordingly, Defendant A asserts that the act of preparing the instant payment note constitutes an expression of intent by fraud or an expression of intent by mistake, and thus cancellation of its declaration by delivery of the reply or the preparatory document as of June 23, 2014.

Modern, Gap No. 5-1.