1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,412,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 25, 2014 to July 16, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 1, 2014, the Defendant entered into a car rental agreement with the Plaintiff, a company mainly engaged in car rental (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), which sets the Plaintiff’s BAD8 car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) as KRW 504,000 per day and sets the rental fee of KRW 504,000 for four days until April 4, 2014, and received the instant vehicle from the Plaintiff on the same day.

B. At the time of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant had to pay the annual rental fee (50% of the rental fee per day, if the Defendant did not present objective calculation data on the rental fee, etc. of the same kind of vehicle) for the operating loss incurred by the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s failure to operate the vehicle during the repair period when the loss incurred to the instant vehicle during the lease period.

(Article 19)(c) of the Automobile Lease Contract, the Automobile Standard Terms and Conditions

On April 5, 2014, the Defendant: (a) driven the instant vehicle on April 17:2, 2014; (b) caused a traffic accident due to negligence (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”); and (c) caused the instant vehicle to be considerably damaged due to the failure to perform the duty of ex officio care while driving the instant vehicle in front of the building, Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul;

The Plaintiff entered the instant vehicle into the factory on April 5, 2014 for the repair of the instant vehicle, and released the instant vehicle on June 24, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 8, the global arsens Co., Ltd., Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., the results of the fact inquiry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the Defendant leased and used the instant vehicle, and then returned the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff upon the expiration of the lease period, but the Defendant destroyed the instant vehicle by negligence in breach of the duty of care while driving the instant vehicle.