1. On September 3, 2014, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on an automobile indicated in the separate sheet.

1. In full view of the facts that there is no partial dispute over the judgment on the claims in this case, and the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, as to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "motor vehicle of this case") between the defendant who runs the truck transportation business, etc., the plaintiff entered into an entrustment management contract with the defendant with the purport that the ownership registration title shall be reverted to the defendant, but the defendant shall be entrusted with the right to operate the motor vehicle of this case to operate the motor vehicle of this case and pay monthly admission fees, taxes and public charges, deduction contributions, insurance premiums, etc. (hereinafter "the above entrustment management contract of this case"), and it

In addition, the fact that the plaintiff notified the defendant of the termination of the entrusted management contract of this case on September 3, 2014, which is the service date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, is obvious in the record.

According to the above facts of recognition, the entrusted management contract of this case is in the form of a mixed contract with the elements of the title trust and the delegation, and the plaintiff, who is in the position of the delegating and the title truster, may terminate the above contract at any time.

Therefore, the entrusted management contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant was terminated on September 3, 2014, which was the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case containing the plaintiff's expression of termination, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the transfer of ownership on September 3, 2014 for the motor vehicle of this case to the plaintiff on September 3, 2014.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. First, the defendant asserts to the effect that, in the case of the plaintiff's response to the claim of this case, the plaintiff should compensate for the above amount of loss, since there is an economic loss equivalent to KRW 18,500,000 due to the acquisition by transfer of new one without meeting the existing number of vehicles.

In this case, the plaintiff legally terminates the entrusted management contract of this case as seen earlier.