1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 7, 2018, the Defendant: “Around May 7, 2018, the Defendant: (a) allowed the Plaintiff to use and benefit from the motor vehicle indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”); (b) paid KRW 18 million with the deposit money to the Defendant; and (c) the deposit was paid to the Defendant, after settling the interest on the deposit and the depreciation costs, etc. for the use of the motor vehicle; and (d) drafted a car lease agreement with the contents of

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract,” and the contract under the terms of the instant contract is referred to as the “instant contract”). B

On the same day, the Plaintiff issued KRW 18 million to the Defendant, and received the instant automobile from the Defendant.

C. On May 28, 2018, the head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ordered the suspension of operation of the instant vehicle pursuant to Article 24-2(2) of the Automobile Management Act at the Defendant’s request.

(hereinafter referred to as “order to suspend operation of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entries in Gap’s 1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that as the implementation of the contract of this case, the plaintiff is obligated to implement the procedure to cancel the suspension of operation of this case so that the plaintiff can use and benefit from the motor vehicle of this case.

B. To the extent that the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, it is not permitted to deny the probative value of the disposal document unless there is any special reason to deny the probative value of the disposal document. However, the above evidence and the statement in Gap evidence No. 9 are considered as a whole in light of the overall purport of the pleadings. In other words, the contract of this case: (i) since the owner of a passenger vehicle, not a commercial vehicle, received a deposit from the user and used the vehicle free of charge for one year, the contents of the contract are extremely unusual; and (ii) the plaintiff is a motor vehicle lease of this case with the aforementioned exceptional contents.