1. The Defendant is jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 33,487,817 and the interest rate thereon from January 11, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 13, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with A to lease snow materials for construction to “B structure site”.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On August 14, 2012, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff directly to the Plaintiff in accordance with the Defendant’s standard for approval when there is no disagreement with the Plaintiff regarding the cost of lease materials related to the instant lease agreement.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant non-compliance”). C.

The Plaintiff leased building materials to A under the instant lease agreement from August 13, 2012 to November 25, 2012, and paid the rent of KRW 33,487,817, and issued a tax invoice stating the same amount to the Defendant.

On August 22, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court decided to commence rehabilitation procedures for the defendant, but decided to abolish on October 30, 2013.

(Seoul Central District Court 2013 Ma146 Debtor Rehabilitation Case). [Grounds for Recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, significant fact, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 33,487,817, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 11, 2013 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, as well as the total of KRW 33,487,817, and as sought by the Plaintiff, jointly and severally with the Plaintiff, a lessee of the instant lease agreement, according to the instant

The defendant asserts that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request because he was ordered to commence rehabilitation procedures on August 22, 2013 by the Seoul Central District Court. However, the Seoul Central District Court decided to discontinue rehabilitation procedures against the defendant on October 30, 2013 is the same as the above. Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.