1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff entered into each lease agreement (hereinafter “each of the instant lease agreements”) with the Defendant Company A (hereinafter “Defendant A”), as shown in the table below, Sept. 29, 2014, and Oct. 27, 2014. Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant A’s obligation under each of the above lease agreements, and the Plaintiff terminated each of the instant lease agreements around April 25, 2016 as the Plaintiff delayed the payment of the lease fees. At the time, the Plaintiff’s delayed payment of the lease fees, etc. can be acknowledged as identical to that stated in the separate claim statement.

On October 27, 2014 on September 29, 2014, the contract date: (a) the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff 62,51,835 won (29,489,780 won, KRW 33,062,05 won, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum of overdue interest rate of KRW 1,280,127 won, KRW 1,343,942, and annual interest rate of KRW 25% per annum 25% per annum; and (b) the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff 62,51,835 won, which is the sum of overdue rent, etc. ( KRW 29,489, KRW 780 won, KRW 33,062,055) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of each overdue interest rate of each of the instant leases from April 26, 2016 to the day of full payment.

Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The defendants asserts that the calculation of the prescribed loss amount should be made after deducting the security deposit from the unclaimed principal.

However, according to each of the above evidence, each of the lease agreements of this case provides that "10% of the accrued principal shall be included in the stipulated loss amount (Article 22), and it is legitimate that the plaintiff did not deduct the deposit from the accrued principal. Thus, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

B. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the amount of overdue interest and the amount of stipulated loss exceeds the limited interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, but it is difficult to view that the provisions of the Interest Limitation Act apply to the amount of stipulated loss, and the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

(c).