1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 37,020,00 and KRW 18,510,00 among them, the Defendant shall start on March 1, 2018, and the remainder 18,510.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a lease management contract for school vehicles (the instant vehicle lease contract) to transport students at C elementary schools as follows.

From March 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018, five (7 auxiliary teachers): 185,100,000 won (including value-added tax), equivalent schools (10 months a year), and 10 months as of the last day of each month, shall be paid in cash within five days of the following month.

The period of vacations shall be at least two months, including summer and winter vacations.

B. From March 2017 to November 2017, the Plaintiff operated a school vehicle for the principal of C Elementary School students, as stipulated in the instant vehicle rental agreement, and was paid the rent of KRW 18,510,000 per month up to the month of November 2017 by the fifth day of the month following the relevant operation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion asserted that the Plaintiff was unable to receive the pertinent rent of KRW 37,020,00,00 (i.e., KRW 18,510,000) even though the Plaintiff operated a sub-school vehicle at C Elementary School in December, 2017 and February 2018 under the instant vehicle lease agreement, and sought payment thereof, the Defendant concluded a contract with the principal of C Elementary School having a separate legal personality with the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant was not obliged to pay the service cost and the monthly rent are excessive. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. 1) Although there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff entered into the instant vehicle lease contract with the principal of the C Elementary School, schools generally are names of educational facilities that are not juristic persons but are not juristic persons but juristic persons, and therefore, in principle, they do not recognize the party ability in civil litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da208255, Mar. 15, 2017).