beta
Text
1. The Defendant terminated the entrustment contract on April 12, 2017 with respect to the motor vehicles indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. On January 3, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant with the content that the Plaintiff will vest in the name of ownership of the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) on the part of the Defendant, while operating the instant motor vehicle upon entrustment by the Defendant.
B. The Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant the intent to terminate the instant contract by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on April 12, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. In a case where an owner of a vehicle and an automobile transport business operator externally trust the name of the vehicle in his/her possession to a vehicle transport business operator and vests the ownership and the right to manage the vehicle in his/her possession in the company to which the ownership and the right to manage the vehicle belongs, and where an entrustment management contract is entered into between the owner of the vehicle and the automobile transport business operator with the intent to pay a certain amount of management fees to the designated company in his/her own account by being entrusted with the right to manage the vehicle in his/her own account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da85324, Jan. 27, 2011), such agreement is in the form of mixing the title trust and the delegation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da85324, Jan. 27, 201).
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da29479 delivered on November 11, 1997, etc.). B.
Judgment
In full view of the above facts in light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate an entrustment contract concerning the instant vehicle reaches the Defendant on April 12, 2017, and thus, the instant contract was lawfully terminated. Therefore, special circumstances exist.