A. The facts of recognition are: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant registered the vehicle indicated in the order of the Defendant’s ownership (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) under the Plaintiff’s name and reverted ownership and management rights to the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant under the Defendant’s independent account by being entrusted with independent operation management rights (hereinafter “instant contract”); (c) the transfer registration of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name was completed with respect to the instant vehicle; and (d) the duplicate of the instant complaint, on January 3, 2017, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant contract with the Defendant, is either a dispute between the parties to which the instant vehicle was served on January 3, 2017, or is recognized by comprehensively taking into account the respective entries in subparagraphs A through 7 (including each

B. Determination 1) The instant contract between the original Defendant is a form of contract in which the elements of title trust and delegation are combined (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da71534, 71541, Feb. 11, 2010). Since the instant contract was terminated on January 3, 2017, on which the copy of the complaint of this case stating the declaration of intent to terminate the instant contract was served on the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to take over the ownership transfer registration procedure on the instant vehicle from the Plaintiff, as the restoration following the termination of the instant contract, barring any special circumstance. 2) The Defendant’s assertion and determination are obliged to return the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 4.8 million, such as value-added tax of KRW 5 million, premium of KRW 19,80,000,000,000,000,000 for the instant vehicle and incidental expenses, it cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s simultaneous performance defense until the said return was made.

Rather, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 9, the defendant.