1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff on the CK5 car owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with respect to the lease period from December 1, 2017 to January 1, 2018, with respect to the rent of KRW 750,00 per month, the temporary rent of KRW 750,00 per month, and the rent for the self-employed car damage caused by the lessee’s negligence, and leased the instant vehicle to the Defendant.

B. On January 1, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the rental period from January 1, 2018 to September 10, 2018, and the rent to KRW 700,000 per month (30 days per payment day).

C. On August 28, 2018, while operating the instant vehicle at night, the instant vehicle was flooded on the road (hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

Upon receipt of the notice of the instant accident from the Defendant, the Plaintiff recovered the instant vehicle, but, as the estimated repair cost exceeds the vehicle price, scrapped the instant vehicle on September 10, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 15 through 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff as the accident of this case occurred because it violated the duty of due care of a good manager until he returns the vehicle of this case leased pursuant to the rental contract of this case, and it violated the duty to use and keep the vehicle of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by the plaintiff as the accident of this case is scrapped. 2) The defendant asserts that the accident of this case is an accident caused by a natural disaster because the accident of this case is caused by the cover of Gap own rainwater due to a storm. However, it is difficult to view the accident of this case by only the images of the Eul evidence 1-1 and 2 as an accident caused by a natural disaster, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

(b).