1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on 6,791.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the simultaneous performance defense based on the Defendant’s claim, such as the outstanding amount of management expenses, etc., is as follows, except for the following, which is used for the part concerning the “simultaneous performance defense based on the Defendant’s claim,” and thus, cited it as is pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. 1) The Defendant is obliged to pay the Defendant the outstanding amount of management expenses, 3,083,220, insurance premium, 2,279, 430, automobile tax, 44,00, 48,470, and environmental improvement charges to the Plaintiff by March 2018.

2) In light of the principle of equity, it is reasonable to view that the obligation to implement the procedures for ownership transfer registration and the obligation to pay management fees, etc. overduely paid to a branch owner upon the termination of a branch entry contract exists concurrently (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da70357 Decided December 24, 2009), Gap five [including the defendant's application for management expenses (including the five, six, and seven) and the number], Eul 13 (including the notice of management expenses in January 2017), Eul 15 (the outstanding amount until July 2017) (the notice of management expenses in July 3, 2017), and the overall purport of oral argument. The plaintiff continues to operate the instant vehicle up to 176,00, and the management expenses agreed upon between the plaintiff and the defendant 208,500 won x 370 won per month, 208, 209 won per month, 208, 2081, 208.