beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows with respect to the argument that the defendant made in the trial of the court of first instance, and the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance 2-C.
In addition to addition to the following parts, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance.
【Supplementary Judgment】
D. The Defendant claimed damages under the provision of the above facility leasing contract on the ground that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the said leased vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). However, the Defendant filed a theft report on May 27, 2014 on the instant vehicle, and provided the Plaintiff with personal information, such as the resident registration number and telephone number, etc. of the Plaintiff, so that the Plaintiff could recover the instant vehicle, but failed to recover the instant vehicle due to the Plaintiff’s failure to make efforts to recover the instant vehicle. Thus, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s obligation to pay damages to the Plaintiff ought to be reduced or exempted in accordance with the principle of good faith or comparative negligence.
On the other hand, it is evident in the record that the Plaintiff terminated the above facility leasing contract on the ground of the non-party company’s delinquency in rent twice or more, and pursuant to the lease agreement (Evidence (Evidence (Evidence (No. 2) and Articles 26 and 25 applicable to the above facility leasing contract, against the Defendant, a joint guarantor of the non-party company, the non-party company, claiming damages for the non-party company’s failure to return the vehicle of this case. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff is obligated to directly recover the vehicle of this case possessed by the third party under the above facility leasing agreement (lease) or the good faith principle, and instead, in full view of the purport of the argument stated in the evidence No. 2, C is obliged to directly recover the vehicle of this case.