beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Claim:
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence
(BMW X5 xDive "" at the last 4th reduction of the first instance judgment is "BMW X5 301 xDive," and "BMW X5 x301 xDive in the tenth 7th sentence, respectively, "BMW X5 x301 xDive." However, the following judgments shall be added:
2. The Plaintiff’s additional determination is that (i) C is a joint and several surety for the instant lease agreement, not a joint lessee, but a joint and several surety for the instant lease agreement; and (ii) B was not authorized to deliver the instant leased vehicle from the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant Dom Dom Dom Dom Dom Doms delivered the instant leased vehicle to a non-authorized lessee.
② In addition, even though the leased vehicle was determined as “BMW X5 30i xDive vehicle” in the instant lease agreement, the vehicle actually registered is “BMWX5 30d xDive vehicle”, and the color of the leased vehicle was registered in a test color different from that applied by the Plaintiff, etc., the instant lease agreement is null and void due to its inconsistency with the object, and thus, the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay the lease fee under the instant lease agreement.
However, even if C is not a joint owner of the instant lease contract, C is not only a lease contract agent whose core duty is to acquire a vehicle from the supplier and transfer the vehicle to the lessee, but also is a joint guarantor of the instant lease contract, and it seems that C was a substantial party to the instant lease contract by concluding the lease succession contract with the Plaintiff separately.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s circumstance at the time of the instant lease agreement, including the Plaintiff’s statement in B’s criminal case, and the e-mail exchanged by the Plaintiff and B, can be seen as impliedly.