1. The Defendant terminated the consignment management contract as of October 5, 2015 with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around July 1, 2004, the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant concluded an entrustment management contract with respect to the automobiles listed in the [Attachment List (hereinafter “instant automobiles”) (hereinafter “instant automobiles”) on July 1, 2004 (the Plaintiff Company asserted the Defendant’s business registration date as the contract date, and the Defendant asserted that the date of concluding the contract is prior to the date of concluding the contract but it is insufficient to recognize

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant consignment management contract”). B.

Article 3 of the entrusted management contract of this case provides that "the entrusted management period shall be three years, and the contract shall be renewed by giving priority to the defendant, unless there is a special reason not to do so after the expiration of the contract."

C. On July 1, 2004, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff Company with respect to the instant motor vehicle, and operated and managed the said motor vehicle in accordance with the instant consignment management contract. Even after the expiration of the management period of the instant consignment management contract, the Defendant did not conclude a separate renewal contract after the expiration of the management period of the instant consignment management contract and managed the instant motor vehicle as in accordance with the implied agreement

Plaintiff

On October 2, 2015, the Company expressed to the Defendant the intent to terminate the instant consignment management contract concerning the instant motor vehicle and served to the Defendant on or around October 5, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the above entrustment management contract for the motor vehicle of this case shall be deemed to have been an undetermined entry contract after the expiration of the term of the above entrustment management contract of this case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da12572 Decided February 14, 2008). As seen earlier, both parties’ implied agreement without concluding a separate contract even after the expiration of the management period of the instant consignment management contract.