1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Facts of recognition

On September 15, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) determined that Boan XC60 was 67,613,720 won; (b) the lease interest rate of 13.098%; (c) the overdue interest rate of 24%; (d) the installment period of 36 months; and (e) the repayment of the principal and interest equal (e.g., repayment method (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”); (c) the instant lease agreement was terminated from 29th to the wind that the Nonparty Company delayed the lease fee.

Lease fees unpaid as of February 16, 2015 are principal 14,024,925, overdue interest 4,995,995,920,920 won.

In the lease contract of this case, D is recorded as joint and several sureties, and D’s certificate of personal seal impression, certified copy of resident registration, tax withholding receipt for wage and salary income, and copy of automobile driver’s license issued as of September 14, 2010 at the time of the lease contract of this case (hereinafter “the document of this case”).

However, the above joint and several guarantee contract is concluded in the name of D with the delivery of the documents of this case by Defendant B, who is the punishment of Defendant D.

(2) On July 6, 2016, the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that it is difficult to deem that D directly and severally guaranteed the instant lease contract or granted the Defendants the right to represent the conclusion of the joint and several guarantee contract, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(2015Na49162) [Grounds for recognition] / [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's assertion is the plaintiff's unauthorized representative, and thus the defendant bears the responsibility for the performance of the joint and several guarantee contract of this case pursuant to Article 135(1) of the Civil Act.

Defendant A’s assertion is not the unauthorized representative of D.

The plaintiff is the defendant B-.