1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 9,835,040,040.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 22, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a car rental agreement (hereinafter “instant rental agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the monthly rental fee of KRW 718,00,000, the rental period of 48 months, and the overdue interest rate of 24% on the car car owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant car”).

B. After November 2015, the Plaintiff failed to pay the rental fee for the instant automobile, and the Defendant, on March 24, 2017, notified the Plaintiff to pay the overdue rental fee by March 31, 2017, declared that the instant lease contract will be terminated, and the said declaration of intent reached the Plaintiff around that time.

C. On April 12, 2017, the Plaintiff returned the instant automobile to the Defendant.

According to the instant lending contract, where the contract is terminated due to a cause attributable to the lessee, etc., the customer shall pay the company a penalty applying the penalty rate (less than one year from the date of conclusion of the contract, less than two years, less than 20%, and less than three years) to the total amount of monthly rent for the remaining contract period, and pay KRW 100,000 as a discharge amount.

E. On April 3, 2017, the unpaid rental fee of the Plaintiff as of April 3, 2017 is KRW 3,698,540 for the unpaid rental fee, KRW 7,705,70 for the penalty for early termination, KRW 430,80 for the semi-paid pension, and KRW 100,00 for the exemption from liability due to an accident.

F. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid each of the Defendant KRW 700,000,000 on April 7, 2017, and KRW 1,400,00 on April 8, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that since the defendant's expression of termination of the loan contract of this case is invalid, the plaintiff does not have the plaintiff's obligation to pay the loan fee to the defendant.

B. We examine the judgment, and the Plaintiff’s case since November 2015.