1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 102,177,673 and KRW 91,256,54 among them, from April 8, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a lease agreement for automobile facilities (Evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of this case; hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) entered into under the name of the Defendants through the Plaintiff’s affiliated shop employees (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). Around July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff implemented an operating lease by setting the lease agreement amounting to 154,772,720 won for the NewB G 350 BG C motor vehicles at KRW 154,72,720,720 for the amount of financial application, and the lease fee amounting to 2,90,120 won for each month, and due date on July 20, 2019; deposit amounting to 14,480,000 won; and damages rateing to 24% per annum.

B. According to the instant lease contract, in the event that a contractual obligation to pay the lease fees, etc. was violated on one occasion, the Plaintiff may terminate the instant lease contract and claim the return of the vehicle if it is not performed within the said period after demanding the Plaintiff to perform the said contractual obligation within a reasonable period of time.

C. On March 28, 2017, the instant lease agreement was notified of termination and requested to return a vehicle as a result of the loss of benefit during a given period on or around March 28, 2017 due to the default of monthly rent. As of April 7, 2017, the instant lease agreement did not pay KRW 102,177,673 in total, including the principal amount of KRW 91,256,544, interest and redemption fees, and administrative fines, etc. as of April 7, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 3 through 6, Evidence Nos. 3 through 3 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff in one party's assertion as to whether to conclude a lawful and effective loan contract concluded the lease contract with D, which is an execution assistant or agent of the defendants, and thereafter, there was a ground for the defendants to lose the benefit of time due to the unpaid monthly payment, and the pertinent vehicle was not returned. Thus, the defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay damages for delay to the plaintiff about KRW 102,177,673 and KRW 91,256,544.

As to this, the Defendants were only to have leased their seals to the Defendants and affixed their seals to the lease contract. The Plaintiff and the instant case.