1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 95,00,000 against the Plaintiff as to the Defendant and its related thereto, from August 28, 2016 to June 27, 2018.

Facts of recognition

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the business of selling and renting cars, and the Defendant is a company that runs the business of leasing cars.

B. On August 2, 2016, between the Defendant’s internal director and the Defendant’s intra-company director and the Director of the KUD Branch, the Plaintiff agreed to lease the said vehicle to E during the period of use from August 2, 2016 to August 27, 2016 (hereinafter “the said vehicle”) and the said vehicle was delivered to E on the same day.

C. Nonparty C, while having experienced difficulties in repaying obligations in the absence of any particular income, was able to collect money to be used in repaying obligations by disposing of the instant vehicle, which was urged by creditors to repay obligations, and was stolen by taking over the instant vehicle from F, an employee, at the Defendant’s permitted point located in Yong-si D around August 24, 2016 and driving the instant vehicle at the Defendant’s permissible point located in Young-si D, G around August 24, 2016.

[C] A person who was prosecuted for the above criminal facts and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment in the criminal trial of the first instance court (Supreme Court Decision 2017Ma1081 Decided August 18, 2017), who was sentenced to a conviction of one year in the criminal trial of the first instance court (the grounds for recognition), shall be determined as to the grounds for the entire pleadings and the grounds for the claim as a whole.

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to return the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant agreement. However, as C was unable to verify the location of the instant vehicle by cutting off the instant vehicle and disposing of it, the obligation to return the instant vehicle was in an impossible condition. The scope of the liability for compensatory damages due to nonperformance of the contract is equivalent to the market price at the time of nonperformance of the obligation. The scope of the liability for compensatory damages due to nonperformance of the contract is equivalent to the market price at the time of nonperformance of the obligation. The market price at the time of nonperformance of the instant vehicle was 95,00,00