1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On October 30, 2006, on the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the motor vehicle indicated in the separate sheet.

According to the above lease contract, the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the above automobile and ordered the defendant to use it.

However, even though the lease term was terminated on October 25, 2009, the defendant continued to occupy and use the above automobile and did not pay various public charges, administrative fines, penalties, etc. imposed on the above automobile.

Therefore, the plaintiff suffered significant damage by paying it on behalf of the plaintiff, and it is anticipated that property damage will occur in the future, and thus, the defendant requested the defendant to acquire ownership of the above automobile, but the defendant did not comply with it.

2. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment below, the ownership of the attached motor vehicle, which is the object of the lease, is owned by the Plaintiff as the leased company (Article 10 of the Terms and Conditions). In principle, upon the termination of the lease contract, the Defendant, the lessee, must return the motor vehicle which is the object

(Article 19(1) of the Terms and Conditions. On the other hand, as asserted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed to acquire ownership of the attached vehicle in the event that property damage occurs to the Plaintiff due to the delay in the Defendant’s duty to return the vehicle after the termination

there is no provision which considers it.

Even if the Plaintiff suffered property damage because the Defendant did not return the attached vehicle despite the expiration of the lease term, and did not transfer the ownership pursuant to the provisions of the terms and conditions, it is merely a matter of compensation for damages caused by nonperformance or tort, not a right to require the Plaintiff to acquire the ownership of the attached vehicle for this reason.

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.