1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant’s trade name was changed from B to C Co., Ltd. on November 1, 2012; D Co., Ltd. on April 5, 2013; C Co., Ltd. on June 20, 2014; and C Co., Ltd on November 17, 2016.

B. On July 16, 2010, the Defendant filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation with the Gwangju District Court 2010Kahap28, and the rehabilitation procedure was completed on September 6, 2010 upon receiving a decision to commence rehabilitation on September 6, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 9 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff leased FK5 vehicles to the Defendant from August 1, 2011 to December 29, 2011; (b) from December 29, 2011 to March 15, 2012; (c) from March 15, 2012 to December 11, 2013; and (d) the Defendant paid only KRW 11,685,00 of the total rental fee of KRW 21,816,00 to December 11, 2013; and (c) the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff unpaid rental fee of KRW 10,131,00 and delay damages therefrom.

B. (1) Determination (1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and No. 1, as to the assertion on the lease of the E Ethrop vehicle, a long-term lease contract for the vehicle with the content that the Plaintiff and the B manager H as the party to the lawsuit and the I SM5 vehicle from August 1, 201 to July 31, 2014 as the amounting to KRW 700,000 (excluding value-added tax) was made, and the above H is recognized as having received delivery of the Ethr vehicle from the Plaintiff in lieu of the IM5 vehicle from the Plaintiff and used it from August 1, 201 to December 29, 2011.

However, in full view of the evidence evidence Nos. 6 and the purport of the whole argument by the court below, the defendant paid all the fees for the SM5 vehicles that entered into a loan contract with the plaintiff, and it can be acknowledged that the additional fees for the alteration of the Orus vehicle would be borne by H. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim the defendant to pay the fees for the E Orus J. 2.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff.