A. The Plaintiff is an owner of a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”). The Defendant is a person who served as the representative director of the Plaintiff and resigned from the office of representative director on April 12, 2013.

B. The instant motor vehicle was used by the Plaintiff for the performance of duties as representative director from May 25, 201, in which the Defendant was in the office of representative director. The Defendant continued to use the instant motor vehicle even after resignation from the office of representative director on April 12, 2013, and returned it to the Plaintiff on August 14, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the instant vehicle was offered as owned by the Plaintiff for convenience in the performance of the representative director, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is not entitled to use the instant vehicle from April 12, 2013, in which the Defendant resigned from the representative director. Therefore, the Defendant, who was no longer in the representative director, has the duty to immediately deliver and return the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Defendant continued to use the instant vehicle even after April 12, 2013, which is the date of resignation from the representative director, and continued to use the instant vehicle after the date of resignation, from April 12, 2013 to August 14, 2013, which is the date of actual return of the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant has the obligation to return the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the instant vehicle from April 12, 2013 to August 14, 2013, upon the Plaintiff’s request for the resignation of the representative director at issue.