1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 45,237,879 as well as KRW 21,533,810 among them, from July 22, 2015 to the day of full payment.

Basic Facts

A. On January 11, 2010, the Defendant concluded an automobile lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff, a lessee, and with respect to the NAS car (hereinafter “instant automobile”), with a period of forty-four months, monthly rent of KRW 1,485,800, and overdue interest rate of KRW 24% per annum.

B. Since August 20, 2010, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff rent, etc. after August 20, 2010, and the instant lease agreement was terminated on November 23, 2010.

As stipulated in the instant lease agreement, the money that the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 1,330,585 as of July 21, 2015: ① overdue lease fee of KRW 1,330,585; ② Excess operation charge of KRW 632,90 (Article 19 of the instant lease agreement); ③ administrative fine of KRW 64,00; ④ early termination fee of KRW 19,506,425 (Article 17 of the instant lease agreement); ⑤ damages for delay of KRW 23,704,069.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. According to the above facts, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 45,237,879, as stipulated in the instant lease agreement (i) the overdue lease charge of KRW 1,330,585 (ii) the excess operation charge of KRW 632,90,300, (iv) the early termination charge of KRW 19,506,425 (amounting to KRW 23,704,069) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 21,53,810 (amount calculated by subtracting damages for delay from the aggregate) of the claimed principal from July 22, 2015 to the day of full payment.

B. The defendant alleged to the effect that he could not respond to the plaintiff's claim because he was dismissed in prison around May 2010 and failed to perform his obligation under the lease contract of this case, and thus he could not return the motor vehicle of this case. However, it is difficult to view that the defendant's claim is not attributable to the defendant's non-performance of obligation. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit

In conclusion, this conclusion is followed.