차량임대료
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
On April 1, 2011, the Plaintiff agreed to receive a rent of KRW 800,000 per month, and leased Drocketing vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) to the Defendant. On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was unable to receive the rent of KRW 40,44 million until he/she returned the instant vehicle, and filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of the rent of KRW 40,40,000 and the delay damages calculated from December 1, 2015.
Although the name and address of the defendant, resident registration number, and driver's license are also reproduced in the upper part of the lease contract (No. 2 of the present vehicle) of the present vehicle, in addition to the fact that the present vehicle was released on January 12, 2010 (the Plaintiff's account book (Evidence No. 3) stated that the present vehicle was released on April 1, 201), E paid KRW 4 million of the rent for the vehicle on March 11, 201 (Evidence No. 2 of the present lease contract) to the lessee column at the bottom of the present lease contract. However, in light of the fact that the vehicle of this case was first leased from the Plaintiff, not the Defendant but the E company.
As above, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant is obligated to pay the rent since he actually used the instant vehicle as a de facto lessee. Thus, according to the evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 500,000,000 won from the Defendant’s deposit account to the Plaintiff’s legal deposit account on March 6, 2013, KRW 100,000,000 won on March 28, 2013, and KRW 16,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s legal deposit account on September 16, 2013 may be recognized. However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s account did not include any change in the lessee’s book, the settlement of rent, or the succession of the obligation for the succession of the rent, the lessee of the instant vehicle alone is a stock company E.