1. The Defendant’s annual period from January 9, 2015 to October 11, 2016, as to KRW 25,213,631 and KRW 15,16,891 among the Plaintiff.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in the changed cause of claims; and

2. Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. The Plaintiff partially dismissed filed a claim for delay damages from January 9, 2015, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the date of payment for the remainder of the obligation (e.g., the unpaid vehicle price, the vehicle rent, and the value-added tax) excluding KRW 15,116,891, which is the damage liability for tort, and thus, the Defendant is liable for delay from the time of filing a claim for performance of the above obligation. Unless there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff filed a claim for performance before filing the instant lawsuit, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was liable for delay by the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim exceeding the above scope of recognition is without merit.