1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. On September 19, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on automobile operation lease (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Defendant and delivered the said automobile to the Defendant.

B. According to Article 20(2) of the Terms and Conditions of Automobile Lease applicable to the instant agreement, the Plaintiff may terminate the agreement and claim the return of the automobile if the Defendant has failed to pay monthly rent at least twice.

As the Defendant did not pay rent more than twice consecutively, the Plaintiff terminated the instant agreement after the notice of performance and received the return of the instant automobile.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy Facts, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6, purport of whole pleadings]

2. We examine ex officio the interest in the confirmation.

A. After the termination of the Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle operation lease agreement, where the Plaintiff sells a motor vehicle to recover the remaining rent, it frequently causes disputes with the Plaintiff, such as filing a civil petition with the Financial Supervisory Service on the ground that the lessee’s consent was not obtained.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff received consent from the lessee on the disposal of the vehicle immediately before disposing of the vehicle by public sale, etc., and did not clearly obtain consent from the Defendant on the disposal of the vehicle by public sale, etc.

In light of the past precedents, since there is no consent from the defendant, it is probable that the dispute may be caused by filing a civil petition with the Financial Supervisory Service on the grounds that there is no consent from the defendant, the judgment like the purport of the claim is sought to eliminate the existing anxiety and danger of the plaintiff's right to

B. In the past, it is difficult to recognize that there is currently apprehension and danger of the Plaintiff’s rights in relation to the Defendant solely on the ground that there was a case in which other lease users file a civil petition against the motor vehicle public auction.

In addition, if the benefit of confirmation is recognized, it shall be determined by the ruling.