A. On March 22, 2004, the Plaintiff, as to each of the instant vehicles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant vehicles”) between the Defendant and the Defendant, belongs to the Defendant. However, upon being entrusted with the operation and management right of the instant vehicle by the Defendant, the Plaintiff, while operating the instant vehicle, paid a certain amount of management expenses each month in return for the entrustment of the said operation and management right, and entered into the entrustment management contract (hereinafter “instant contract”), which stipulates that the Plaintiff shall be liable to pay taxes, public dues, insurance premiums, penalties, etc., and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership in its name.

B. The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant contract by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint, and the Defendant received the duplicate of the instant complaint on April 22, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant contract on each of the instant automobiles is a so-called branch entry contract combining the elements of title trust and delegation, and as such, the said mandatary and the Plaintiff, who is in the position of the title truster, may terminate the instant contract at any time. As such, the instant contract was terminated on April 22, 2015, on which a copy of the complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination was served on the Defendant, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obliged to implement the transfer registration procedure on each of the instant automobiles to the Plaintiff on April 22, 2015.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.