1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,867,289 and the interest rate thereon from August 24, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff and Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) entered into a facility lease agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with respect to the low-priced vehicles (including value added tax), monthly rental fee of KRW 828,190 (including value added tax), siren period of KRW 48 months, and overdue interest rate of KRW 24% per annum.

The defendant B, who is the representative director of the defendant company, is stated in the contract of this case as joint guarantor.

B. The Defendant Company delayed the payment of the monthly rental fee, etc. under the instant contract, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant Company of the termination of the instant contract on August 23, 2016.

As of August 23, 2016, under the terms and conditions of the instant contract and its terms and conditions, the Defendant Company’s obligation to pay the settlement amount in accordance with the terms and conditions thereof is the sum of KRW 25,867,289 [The amount of monthly payment in arrears = KRW 1,161,39 early termination fees (Article 14 of the Terms and Conditions) 1,161,399 (Article 20(4) of the Terms and Conditions - KRW 3,476,00].

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 25,867,289, and damages for delay calculated by an agreement of 24% per annum from August 24, 2016 to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, the Defendant Company asserts to the effect that it is unreasonable to claim the “unclaimed principal” of the vehicle value as of August 23, 2016, without the Plaintiff’s recovery, even though the Defendant Company is keeping the vehicle in the parking lot so that the Plaintiff may return the low-priced vehicle to the Plaintiff.

However, there is no evidence that the defendant company provided the plaintiff with the duty of return of the above vehicle or completed its return. Thus, the above argument by the defendant company cannot be accepted.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B raises this.