1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 91,304,208 and KRW 89,855,536 from February 2, 2017.

1. The following facts of recognition are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 6:

On April 12, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a BMF car installment financing agreement with Defendant A, and leased KRW 96,152,720 at an annual interest rate of 7.88% (19% per annum) and 60 months (the terms and conditions of repayment of the principal and interest equal) during the loan period. Defendant B guaranteed the said debt owed to the Plaintiff by Defendant A.

B. However, Defendant A, as of November 25, 2016, lost the benefit of time by delaying the return of the loan from November 25, 2016, and accordingly, as of February 1, 2017, the sum of KRW 91,304,208 (i.e., the principal of the loan plus KRW 84,023,197 plus KRW 5,832,339 plus interest of KRW 126,979 plus overdue interest of KRW 126,69,693, and KRW 1,242,000 are not repaid.

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed delay damages at the rate of 19% per annum from February 2, 2017 to the date of full payment of the principal and interest of the loan amounting to KRW 9,85,536 ( KRW 84,023,197 plus KRW 5,832,339).

As to this, Defendant A, a corporation, filed a petition for bankruptcy with Suwon District Court No. 2016Hahap46, and Defendant B, as Suwon District Court No. 2017Hadan466, filed a petition for bankruptcy and application for immunity. However, solely on the grounds that the Defendants filed a petition for bankruptcy and application for immunity, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants’ obligations are exempted or restricted, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants received bankruptcy and exemption from immunity. Thus, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.