1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. From October 30, 2015 to July 7, 2011 of the same year, the Defendant leased each of the instant vehicles from the Plaintiff for eight days from October 30, 2015, from the 10th to the 23th day of the same month, to the 13th day of the same month, to the Mazon vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lending agreement”) each of the above lending agreements entered into between the Defendant. (b)

At the time of each of the instant lending agreements, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that Nonparty KB non-party KB non-party KB non-party company (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) guaranteed the payment of automobile rental expenses according to each of the instant lending agreements as an insurance company of the vehicle causing the traffic accident

C. Meanwhile, when the insurance company guarantees the payment of lending and borrowing costs due to a traffic accident, the Plaintiff calculated the lending and borrowing costs based on the loan rate table published on the website by Nonparty B, the share in the market in the vehicle lending industry, and after the end of each of the lending agreements in this case, calculated the lending and borrowing costs of the instant vehicle in the same manner, and claimed a total of KRW 8,400,000 (including additional tax 40,000 won per day of the instant vehicle) to the Nonparty company.

However, on April 21, 2016, the non-party company asserted that it is only responsible for the payment of the loan expense of KRW 1,536,000 (including surtax) to the Defendant, and paid KRW 1,536,000 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased the instant vehicle to the Defendant in accordance with each of the instant lending agreements, and only 1,536,000 won out of the Plaintiff’s claim amount of 8,40,000 won (1,396,364 additional tax amount of KRW 139,636), and the Defendant is liable to pay the remainder of the lending cost and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is to the Defendant in accordance with the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399.