1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged:

1) From March 2014 to April 2016, the Defendant is limited to D (hereinafter “D”) whose business has been registered in the name of Plaintiff husband C (her husband).

(2) Around August 2015, the Plaintiff operated the instant vehicle under the name of the Plaintiff and operated the FenzE300 vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) under the Plaintiff’s name, and paid the installment of the instant vehicle.

3) On April 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the return of the instant vehicle upon the Plaintiff’s closing of D, but the Defendant did not perform it, and the Defendant did not pay the installment of the instant vehicle thereafter. 4) After which the Defendant applied for the order to suspend the operation of the instant vehicle, the Defendant returned the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff on or before August 2016, and the Plaintiff returned the instant vehicle to E again, and the Plaintiff disposed of the instant vehicle by public auction.

5. As the Defendant discontinued the installment payment of the instant vehicle, the Plaintiff paid KRW 13,849,791 to E from May 9, 2016 to December 13, 2016.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 13,849,791 won by subrogation for the vehicle of this case and damages for delay.

2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion: (a) although the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to transfer the name of the instant vehicle, the Plaintiff rejected it; (b) thereafter, the Plaintiff arbitrarily cancelled the instant vehicle lease contract without the Defendant’s consent; and (c) the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant vehicle was asserted to the effect that the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the instant vehicle insofar as it was incurred due to the cancellation of the lease contract. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff did not have the obligation