2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On July 30, 2010, the Defendant’s lease period from the Plaintiff is the same year.

8.5. For the end, the Plaintiff-owned B vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) was leased.

The matters to be considered as the driver in the vehicle lease contract(A) prepared at the time shall not be insured in the event of an accident during the 1. Unlicensed and Third Party Driving. 3. The customer shall be responsible for traffic accidents and accidents during the use of the vehicle.

B. Around 05:30 on August 5, 2010, where the Defendant had a male-friendly district, the Defendant caused an accident in the vicinity of the Ansan-si and the Ansan-dong Dam while driving the instant vehicle under a license without permission.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

After compensating the Plaintiff for the damage caused by the instant accident, the damage insurance company of ELA filed a claim for reimbursement with the Daegu District Court Decision 2013Da254733, and won was ruled in favor of the Plaintiff on June 9, 2014. The Plaintiff repaid KRW 6,924,640 to the damage insurance company of ELA on June 30, 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant, as a lessee of the instant vehicle, is liable to compensate the plaintiff's damage caused by the instant accident, which caused C, a non-licensed person and a third party during the lease period of the instant vehicle, as the lessee of the instant vehicle, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that C only caused an accident while driving the instant vehicle while having the key of the instant vehicle in the future following Defendant C while driving the instant vehicle, and that he could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since he did not permit C to use the instant vehicle. However, the statement of the evidence No. 1 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s argument, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Even if the Defendant’s allegation is acknowledged, the Defendant mistakenly stored the key of the instant vehicle.