1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 27,510,468 and KRW 27,452,68 among them, 24% per annum from November 8, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (i) On June 26, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for automobile facility leasing (lease) with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff, setting the monthly payment amount of KRW 648,400 per annum, interest in arrears at 24% per annum, and the lease period at 48 months.

Shedly, the Defendant did not pay the monthly payment more than three times and lost the benefit of time.

The amount to be borne by the Defendant under the instant contract is as follows based on November 4, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, Eul 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from November 8, 2013 to the date of full payment, which is the delay rate of 24% per annum, with respect to the Plaintiff’s 27,452,681 won, excluding the above 27,510,468 won and damages for delay 57,787 won.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the deposit was required by the Defendant, thereby making a loan to the Defendant’s friendship C through the Defendant’s friendship C, and delivered the documents related to the loan. However, D entered into the instant contract with the Defendant as a loan-related document and delivered the vehicle, and as a result, D became out of the Defendant’s obligation.

As such, the defendant is a victim of fraud and does not conclude the contract of this case with the plaintiff.

In addition, even if the Defendant’s act of giving loan-related documents to D is recognized as an authorized act, it was sufficiently known or known that D’s conclusion of the instant contract with the Plaintiff solely for its own interest was an abuse of power of attorney, and the Plaintiff, a specialized credit company, was subject to the procedures for verifying the identity of the Defendant or

Considering the above circumstances, the Plaintiff is unable to be liable to the Defendant under the instant contract, or is subject to the Plaintiff’s fault ratio.