beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except that the third to the fifth to the fourth to the fourth below of the judgment of the court of first instance is the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Determination as to the claim for lease deposit or compensatory damages
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant bus, and paid KRW 45 million to the Defendant for the deposit. On March 21, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the lease agreement on the grounds of delayed payment of transport charges and unfair allocation management. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 45 million upon the termination of the lease agreement. (2) According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 5, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s person in charge of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s statement No. 5, under the title “Lease Agreement,” the Plaintiff’s statement that “The Plaintiff invested KRW 45 million with respect to the instant bus in April 26, 2016.”
However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings, including ① purchased the bus of this case from the Defendant at the complaint, and the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into an entry contract with the Defendant to force the purchase of the bus of this case (However, there is no evidence to prove that the confession was contrary to the truth or due to mistake, although the Plaintiff reversed the claim through a change in the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of November 10, 2017). ② Although the title is deemed a lease agreement, the Plaintiff’s investment as to the bus of this case, which is entirely irrelevant to the lease agreement, amounts to KRW 45 million, and ③ the Plaintiff’s failure in the part of the engine of the bus of this case on March 17, 2017, was caused, and thus, the Defendant’s demand for excessive repair expenses was made.