1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The first instance court partly accepted the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for contract deposit and the claim for delivery of automobiles, and partly accepted the part of the claim for return of unjust enrichment.

The scope of the court's appeal is limited to the part against the plaintiff among the claim for return of unjust enrichment.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that designs and manages fire-fighting systems, and the Defendant is a person who has been engaged in business activities for the Plaintiff from May 2014.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff on the condition that the Defendant would engage in business activities on behalf of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff would lend a vehicle and corporate card

(hereinafter “instant contract”). C.

On May 10, 2014 under the instant contract, the Plaintiff purchased a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) to support the Defendant’s business activities, and delivered the said motor vehicle to the Defendant.

After receiving the instant vehicle, the Defendant did not use the instant vehicle for business purposes, contrary to the terms and conditions of the initial contract, and had implied intent to terminate the instant contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant around February 25, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The Plaintiff’s assertion is obligated to pay the Plaintiff unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 17,653,049 from February 26, 2015 to February 7, 2017, by operating the instant vehicle without returning the instant vehicle even after the termination of the instant contract. Since the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,011,620 of automobile tax and KRW 720,450 on behalf of the Defendant, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the said amount.

4. Determination

A. We examine the determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rental cost. From February 26, 2015 to February 27, 2017, the Defendant, after the termination of the instant contract.