2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On January 8, 2008, the Plaintiff Company was established and deemed dissolved on December 11, 2017. D, which was the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, was married around 2008 with E, the Defendant’s father, and the Plaintiff Company divorced on December 19, 2017.

B. On July 22, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into an automobile lease agreement with FF Co., Ltd. and Genz E300 Vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). On July 31, 2012, the Defendant entered into the said automobile lease agreement with F Co., Ltd. on the instant vehicle.

C. Meanwhile, from July 22, 2010, the instant vehicle is being operated by the Defendant from around July 22, 2010 to the present date.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) A’s offering of the instant vehicle to the Defendant constitutes embezzlement or breach of trust against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, despite being aware of the aforementioned circumstances, has used the said vehicle without compensation in collusion with D, etc., which constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff. 2) Furthermore, during the period of using the instant vehicle, the lease deposit, etc. paid by the Plaintiff in relation to the said vehicle constitutes unjust enrichment by the Defendant.

3) Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 29,151,200, and KRW 33,004,000, and KRW 3260,000,000, and KRW 3260,000,000, as a total of the premium from September 2, 2010 to April 2, 2012. (B) Defendant 1 merely offered the instant vehicle to the Defendant, who is the principal at the time D, for use as the title, and there was no fact that the lessee of the instant vehicle was the Plaintiff at the time of July 22, 2010.

2 Even if not,

Even if the Plaintiff asserts, the costs related to the instant vehicle shall be borne by April 2012.