1. The Defendant terminated the entrustment management contract on October 17, 2019 with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 28, 2017, the Defendant, a local owner, entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to designate management expenses as KRW 330,000 per month with respect to automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”), and has continued to renew the said agreement after the transfer of ownership was registered in the name of the Plaintiff.

B. On October 17, 2019, a duplicate of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the said branch contract, was delivered to the Defendant.

C. From August 2019 to August 2019, the entrusted management expenses not paid to the Plaintiff, even though the Defendant was engaged in freight trucking services using the said motor vehicle, are the total of KRW 11,241,101.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, significant fact, entry of Gap's 1 through 10 evidence (including paper numbers), purport of whole pleading

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the entry contract of this case was terminated by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case stating the plaintiff's expression of intent of termination.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on October 17, 2019 with respect to the instant automobile to the Plaintiff, and barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant gains profits equivalent to the management expenses of the agreement from the termination of the said land entry contract to the time of receiving the registration of transfer of ownership by the said automatic agent. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the Plaintiff’s unjust profits at the rate of KRW 11,241,101 and KRW 330,000 per month from September 1, 2019 to the day of acquisition.

(B) On the other hand, the defendant alleged that his name was forged, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's assertion is without merit).3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.