1. The Defendant caused the termination of the title trust on August 30, 2020 on the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in Gap evidence No. 3 and Eul evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff completed the transfer of ownership on June 27, 2014 as to the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "motor vehicle of this case"), the plaintiff prepared a power of delegation to the defendant on June 29, 2014. The defendant occupied the motor vehicle of this case while operating the motor vehicle of this case from around that time, and until June 2019, the policyholder who concluded the insurance contract for the motor vehicle of this case can also be recognized as the defendant.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the automobile of this case is actually owned by the defendant and has title trust with the plaintiff.

Therefore, the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the instant automobile was lawfully terminated upon the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention that the title trust agreement on the instant automobile is terminated. As such, the Defendant, on August 30, 2020, entered the date of termination of the title trust on the instant automobile from the Plaintiff as August 30, 2020, and the duplicate of the complaint containing the declaration of termination of the title trust was delivered to the Defendant on June 20, 2020 by public notice.

Since the defendant filed a report on the place of service and revoked the disposition of service by public notice, the above service by public notice was lawfully made, it is recognized as the date of termination on August 30, 2020 sought by the plaintiff since June 20, 2020.

There is a duty to take over the transfer registration procedure due to the cancellation of title trust.

2. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the purport that the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable since all insurance premiums, taxes, administrative fines, etc. for the instant automobile were paid. However, the defendant's insurance premiums, taxes, administrative fines, etc. for the instant automobile as alleged by the defendant.