1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 38,802,844 as well as the interest rate from August 9, 2016 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 18, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a system lease agreement with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), and leased the system at C site. On January 28, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a temporary re-lease agreement and leased temporary materials at Gwangju D site, E site, and F site.

B. Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation to the Plaintiff under each of the above lease agreements.

C. On January 28, 2013, Article 5 of the Temporary Re-lease Agreement states that “the Defendant shall reimburse the Plaintiff at a unit price destroyed and lost in addition to the separate sheet if there is a destroyed and lost quantity among the leased items.”

As of September 22, 2015, the Defendant Company unpaid KRW 16,668,094 out of the rent to the Plaintiff as of September 22, 2015, and did not return the temporary materials listed in the “Contents of Materials D (B)” but the unit price for the unclaimed temporary materials is total of KRW 22,134,750.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the claim for rent, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff rent of KRW 16,668,094 and delay damages therefor.

B. According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the indemnity amounting to KRW 22,134,750 of the indemnity amounting to the unpaid temporary materials as stated in the separate sheet and the delay damages.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that, around February 19, 2014, the Defendant Company agreed not to reimburse when the loss ratio of temporary materials does not reach 3% of the total temporary materials leased, the Defendant Company did not have the obligation to pay the said indemnity to the Plaintiff, since the temporary materials destroyed by the Defendant Company does not reach 3% of the total temporary materials leased.

The plaintiff's written estimate No. 1, which seems consistent with the defendant's argument, is the plaintiff's trade name.