The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. In the first instance court’s judgment, the Plaintiff sought the delivery of a motor vehicle as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”) from June 1, 2015 to June 1, 2015, and restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 900,000 per month from June 1, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the said motor vehicle, and sought the delivery of the instant motor vehicle based on the ownership as the preliminary claim. The first instance court dismissed the primary claim and accepted

The plaintiff appealed against this, and the court of this case dismissed the claim for the delivery of the automobile of this case, and sought the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and rent calculated in the ratio of 78,700 won per month from June 1, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the automobile of this case from June 1, 2015.

Therefore, this Court is to judge the above reduced monetary claims.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant concluded a lease agreement on the instant motor vehicle with the Plaintiff through C, which operated the Plaintiff’s business office, but did not pay the Plaintiff the rent of the instant motor vehicle.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to refund to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 788,700 per month from June 1, 2015, which the Defendant recognized as the time of delivery of the instant vehicle, to the completion date of delivery of the instant vehicle ( April 9, 2020) ( KRW 717,000, value added tax of KRW 71,700 as of 2012) from June 1, 2015, which was recognized as the time of delivery of the instant vehicle.

B. The testimony of the first instance court witness C is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the lease contract of the instant motor vehicle was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence above, C allows the Defendant to use the instant motor vehicle, and the relevant facts are related.