1. The Defendant is 24% per annum from August 18, 2015 to the date of full payment with respect to KRW 8,595,361 and KRW 7,894,104 among the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 8, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with a gold industry (hereinafter “gold industry”) to set the Royal vehicle price of KRW 58,200,000 with a limited liability company (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”).

The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation under the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff in the gold-day industry.

B. According to the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement, if the grounds for early termination of the lease agreement arise, the lessee loses the benefit of time, and the Plaintiff may claim the return of the automobile upon cancelling the lease agreement.

In this case, the lessee paid the damages incurred to the Plaintiff early termination fee or regulation loss according to the vehicle disposal method.

In addition, if a lessee fails to pay the amount to be paid to the Plaintiff by the due date under the lease contract of this case, such as lease fees, the lessee paid compensation for delay at the rate of 24% per annum, and the lessee agreed to pay the delayed payment until the return of the automobile is returned if he/she delays the return of the automobile despite the expiration or termination of the lease contract of this case

C. During the term of the instant lease agreement, the gold business and the Defendant did not pay the lease fee.

On May 14, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant, etc. that the instant lease contract was automatically terminated.

The remaining amount of claims as of August 17, 2015 after the Plaintiff returned the instant leased vehicle and appropriated it with the lease fee claims, etc. shall be as follows:

(1) Termination fees: 7,816,913 won; 2. Insurance proceeds: 77,191 won; 379,793 won; 4. Compensation for delay: 321,464 won; 321,464 won (based on recognition); 1 through 11; and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is a joint and several surety under the lease contract of this case and is the plaintiff.