A. On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement with Amerz Comprehensive Financial Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mez Securities”) with respect to Amerz 53.0 TDI (hereinafter “instant automobile”) as the lessor’s “Mez securities,” the lessee’s “Plaintiff,” and the lease term “36 months from the date of issuance of the automobile acquisition certificate,” and the monthly lease term “2,445,700 won,” respectively.

B) The Plaintiff concluded the instant lease contract. (b) On August 9, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed KRW 14,00,000 from the Defendant to the Defendant, and (b) borrowed KRW 14,510,000,00 for the instant vehicle; (c) around that time, C transferred the instant vehicle to the Defendant as collateral; (b) around that time, C paid rent under the instant lease contract to the Plaintiff from around August 9, 2014. The Defendant used the instant vehicle from around August 9, 2014 to the present day. (d) The Defendant was using the instant vehicle from around August 9, 2014 to the present day, with no dispute over the fact that C was using the instant vehicle from around 14,510,000, including each number.

2. Determination on the claim for the delivery of a motor vehicle

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the above automobile to the plaintiff, who is the lessee seeking the delivery of the above automobile in subrogation of the Mez securities, the owner of the automobile in this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s assertion (i.e., the Defendant’s obligee’s subrogation lawsuit was filed before November 9, 2017, which was the expiration date of the lease term stipulated in the instant lease agreement, even though the due date for the obligor’s subrogation right under Article 404(2) of the Civil Act should arrive for the exercise of obligee’s subrogation right.