1. The defendant shall receive KRW 1,673,010 from the plaintiff and at the same time indicate the attached vehicle to the plaintiff.

1. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff, on April 1, 200, entrusted the title of the automobile to the defendant as to the motor vehicle indicated in the attached list, entrusted with the operation and management rights of the above motor vehicle, operated the above motor vehicle practically by being entrusted with the defendant, and entered into the entrustment management contract with the purport that the above motor vehicle shall pay monthly admission fees and management expenses (hereinafter "each of the above contracts") and the defendant completed the transfer of ownership as to each of the above motor vehicles.

According to the above facts, each of the instant land contracts is a mixed contract with the elements of title trust and delegation. In light of the nature of such a contract, the Plaintiff is in a position to terminate the instant land entry contract with the Defendant, which is unilaterally and unilaterally a party to the title trust, and to recover full ownership inside and outside the country, at any time as a delegated person and a land owner, who is in the position of the title truster.

As such, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da29479, Nov. 11, 1997) the instant provisional contract was lawfully terminated on April 7, 2016, when the record reveals that the duplicate of the instant written complaint containing the declaration of intent of termination was served on the Defendant.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the motor vehicle stated in the attached list with respect to the motor vehicle to restore to its original state following the termination.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that Nonparty B is the substantial party to the instant consignment management contract, and that even if the Plaintiff was registered as a transfer of ownership, it is not entitled to obtain a license for trucking transport business in the future of the Plaintiff, and thus, it cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim