1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 33,624,939 won and December 12.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ariju Capital”) entered into an automobile facility leasing agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) on the sports vehicle for food 407 February 0, 197. Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of Defendant A to bear the Ari Capital according to the said lease agreement.

B. On March 29, 2013, Onnuri Holdings Asset Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Onnuri Holdings Asset Loan”), On August 5, 2013, Onnuri Holdings Asset Loan, in succession, assigned to the Plaintiff the claim under the instant lease agreement to the Defendants, and the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of the claim and notified the Defendants of the assignment of the claim.

C. On March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor acquired the claim against the Defendants under the lease agreement of this case from the Plaintiff, delegated the authority to notify the assignment of claims, and notified the Defendants of the assignment of claims.

As of September 21, 2015, the claim under the lease contract of this case remains in total of KRW 20,874,065, including principal and overdue interest in 12,750,874,065, and KRW 33,624,939.

E. The overdue interest rate set by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor within the scope of the overdue interest rate on the purchased bonds is 17% per annum.

[Ground] Confession (Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. The Plaintiff’s claim determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim sought payment against the Defendants under the lease agreement of this case, but the Plaintiff transferred the above claim against the Defendants to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff as seen earlier. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants premised on the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

3. According to the above facts of determination as to the claim of the plaintiff succeeding intervenor, the main debtor and the defendants who are joint and several sureties are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor who acquired the claim under the lease contract of this case.