1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 32,50,000 and KRW 2,500,00 among them, the Defendant shall start on March 1, 2016, and the remainder 30,000.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 14, 201, the Plaintiff respectively lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant, KRW 10,000,000 on December 15, 2011, KRW 10,000 on May 2, 2012, and KRW 10,000,000 on July 31, 2012, and the Defendant repaid only KRW 10,000,000 on June 15, 2012.

B. The Defendant, under the trade name of “C”, is a person who produces and sells automobile parts, and the Plaintiff served for a company operated by the Defendant from January 1, 2012.

C. On December 22, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on the equipment listed in the separate sheet in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant equipment”) and borne an advance of 16,900,000.

From the end of December 2, 2012 to the end of February 2016, the Plaintiff operated the instant equipment at the Defendant Company. The Defendant paid on behalf of the Plaintiff the leased of the instant equipment until February 22, 2016, and paid KRW 2,500,000 per month to the Plaintiff.

(F) up to August 2013, KRW 2,900,000 has been paid, but from September 2013 to September 2, 2013, KRW 2,500 has been paid.

The Plaintiff was in Vietnam from March 2016 to September 2016, and the Defendant used the instant equipment during that period, and delivered the instant equipment to the Plaintiff around September 2016.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers in case of additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7, witness D's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,000,000 for outstanding loans and interest thereon, and delay damages. The Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 5,000,000 for earnings on February 1, 2016 and delay damages thereon, and to pay KRW 7,50,000 for equipment usage fees from March 2, 2016 to September 2016 and delay damages.

The equipment of this case was to be purchased by the Plaintiff from the beginning, and the Defendant owned the equipment of this case, and the equipment was paid in kind to the Plaintiff after the lease term expires.