1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 48,852,326 and the amount of KRW 48,805,821 from August 12, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an automobile lease agreement with B, who is an employee of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Terms of Agreement: Lease Fee of 32 months: 1,070,300 won in arrears: The remaining value of 24%: the model name of 24,183,00 won: K9 Robles Social A/T Vehicle Number: KS : Other insurance premiums, penalties and administrative fines due to negligence of drivers, etc.

B. At the time of the instant contract, D, the representative director of the Defendant, was jointly and severally guaranteed for the Defendant Company’s obligations.

(D) Although D denied the fact of joint and several sureties, on June 22, 2016, Busan District Court Decision 2015Kadan212567 decided that D was liable for the joint and several sureties, and that judgment became final and conclusive around that time, and the above judgment was hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment”).

As the Defendant did not pay rental fees, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant contract. As of August 11, 2015, the sum of overdue rental fees, termination fees, and outstanding principal, etc. under the instant contract is KRW 48,852,326. Of them, the amount excluding liquidated damages is KRW 48,805,821.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9; Eul evidence No. 1; substantial facts to the court; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) entered into the contract of this case with the defendant, and the contract of this case was terminated due to delinquency in lease fees. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a sum of KRW 48,852,326, such as overdue lease fees, termination fees, etc.

(2) At the time, the contract of this case was concluded by B, who is a working person of the defendant company, without knowledge of the defendant's former representative director, and the defendant's representative director at the present is not aware of the facts, and the defendant cannot be held liable

(b) judgment (1) is already binding on the facts recognized in the judgment of other civil cases, etc.