beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is entitled to KRW 4,586,513 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
Reasons
1. A lease period of 1: A lease period of 48 months from the date of delivery of the vehicle: 24% per annum; and 300,000 won per accident: A deposit transfer (Cms) from the bank account in the name of the Plaintiff: A driver other than a customer: A driver who has failed to pay the lease fee on at least two occasions; (8) where the contract is terminated during the course of the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the cause attributable to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant penalty (=monthly rent (excluding additional rent) x 12/365 x the number of days yet yet x the rate of penalty x 30% from the delivery date of the vehicle; 20% less than two years and 10% more than two years, and the Plaintiff entered into the lease contract of this case (hereinafter “the following main contents”) on April 8, 2014.
On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff received the instant vehicle, and thereafter the Plaintiff or C did not pay the rental fee more than twice while paying the rental fee to the Defendant. On September 2, 2016, the Defendant returned the instant vehicle through C’s mother, and notified the Plaintiff of the purport that the instant contract will be terminated on the same day.
As of September 2, 2016, unpaid rental fee is KRW 2,522,00, penalty is KRW 882,632, and customer charges due to vehicle accidents are KRW 900,000 in total, and damages for delay based on January 2, 2017, which is the time when the defendant's counterclaim is filed, is KRW 281,881.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6, 10, 11 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the Plaintiff’s main claim is C. The actual user of the instant motor vehicle is the actual user of the instant motor vehicle. The Plaintiff itself is merely a mere lending of the name of the contractor under the intention of not bearing contractual liability, and the Defendant is aware of this fact, and understood this case.