beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 11 through 16, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff was a corporation that runs the automobile rental business, etc. and operates the automobile B in the name of the plaintiff on December 17, 2006, and the defendant registered and operated the automobile B in the name of the plaintiff on December 17, 2006, and paid KRW 10,000 per month as management expenses to the plaintiff, and the various public charges, insurance premiums, transportation penalties, etc. imposed on the vehicle of this case during the contract period (hereinafter "the contract of this case"). The contract of this case was concluded again on December 18, 2010, and public charges, such as administrative fines, environmental improvement charges, etc. imposed on the vehicle of this case during the contract period, can be acknowledged as constituting KRW 3,47,120,00.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the management expenses incurred during the contract period and the amount equivalent to the public charges imposed on the motor vehicle of this case under the contract of this case.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 14,277,00,000,00 (=1,080,000 won x 117 months) as management expenses (i.e., 1,000 won x 1,17 months) incurred by the Plaintiff from Dec. 1, 2006 upon deducting 1,080,000 won (i.e., KRW 1,77,00,000) incurred by the Plaintiff from January 18, 2008 (i.e., KRW 1,177,90,00) and damages for delay as seen above (i.e., KRW 1,08,000, KRW 3,477,120,000) and public charges (i.e., KRW 3,477,1200).
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserted to the effect that, as the instant contract was terminated by delivering the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff around October 2014, there is no room for the subsequent payment obligation of management expenses, however, evidence Nos. 3, 13, and 15 respectively.