On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) entrusted the ownership of the instant motor vehicle purchased by the Plaintiff to the Defendant company for a period of two years; (b) the Plaintiff actually operated the instant motor vehicle; (c) entered into an entrustment management contract with the purport that the Plaintiff shall pay monthly management expenses, branch admission fees, insurance premiums, etc. to the Defendant company in return for entrustment (hereinafter “instant branch entry contract”); and (d) completed the registration of the change of the name of the instant motor vehicle to the Defendant on the same day.

B. On November 2, 2015, a duplicate of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant entry contract reaches the Defendant.

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. According to the facts acknowledged above, the instant land entry contract is in the form of a mixed contract with the elements of title trust and delegation. In light of the nature of such a contract, the Plaintiff is in the position of cancelling the instant land entry contract with the Defendant, who is the delegated person and the managing company unilaterally, and is in the position of recovering full ownership inside and outside the country, at any time as the managing company.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da29479 delivered on November 11, 1997, etc.). B.

Therefore, the entry contract of this case was lawfully terminated on November 2, 2015, clearly stated that the duplicate of the complaint of this case containing the expression of intent of termination was delivered to the defendant.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant motor vehicle due to the cancellation of the above termination to the plaintiff.

3. The defendant.