1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,869,500 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from August 9, 2016 to June 9, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. The parties’ assertion that around February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) concluded a construction machinery lease contract with the Defendant’s agent B (trade name: C); and (b) the Defendant provided a joint and several surety with the rent obligations under the above B; (c) from that time, the Plaintiff leased the searcher by replacing the searcher over several occasions until March 19, 2016; (d) however, the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid only part of the rent and did not pay the remainder of KRW 22,02,040.

In this regard, the defendant only prepares a contract to the effect that he will take over the flaps, but does not claim the rent debt as a joint and several surety.

2. According to the evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 7 (including additional numbers), the facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff leased to B; (b) whether the Defendant’s signature exists in the contract; and (c) whether the Defendant signed in the column of the joint and several sureties are as follows.

The Defendant’s signature guarantee for the payment of the rent for the vehicle number on the date of lease x 3,20,00-2 G 3,220,00,00 on July 14, 2014 x 7-3 x 6-3 of H0 on September 14, 2015 x 6-6 I 0-7-2 x x 7,535,500 on July 15, 2015 x 20,004-2 x 50 on August 15, 2015 x 3,220,00-4 x x 504-2 x x 204 x 204 on September 14, 2015 x 6 x 5 x 6 x 10 x 7,07-2 x x 7,535,540 x 20 x 20 x 24

3. Among the contracts submitted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant signed the contract in light of the fact that the Defendant signed on the column of joint and several sureties even if it was signed by the Defendant and did not so.

It is difficult to view that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the whole of the rent obligations solely on the ground that the payment of part of the rent is made, and only the Defendant is liable for the payment of the rent under the contract signed by the Defendant in the column of joint and several sureties (No. 2-1 and No. 7

Therefore, the defendant's 1,879,500 won and the following day from August 9, 2016, which was clearly recorded that the original copy of the payment order of this case was served on the plaintiff, is a considerable dispute over the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation.