1. On February 7, 2019, the Defendant has caused the termination of the contract for the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff engaged in cargo transport business entered into an entrustment management agreement with the Defendant on the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter in this case), and the Defendant paid KRW 308,000 (including value-added tax) monthly management expenses to the Plaintiff. However, if the management expenses are overdue for more than three months, the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the contract.

B. From May 2018 to February 2019, the Defendant delayed the payment of management expenses of KRW 4,131,210 for more than three months. Accordingly, on February 7, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the entrustment contract by mail verifying the content of the contract, and the notification of termination reached the Defendant around that time.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the above consignment management contract of the parties to the instant automobile was lawfully terminated on February 7, 2019 by the plaintiff's notice of termination on the ground of the defendant's causes attributable to the defendant.

As such, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant automobile from the plaintiff.

In addition, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff KRW 4,131,210 of the management expenses in arrears until February 2019.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that, while operating the instant vehicle under Daegu, the Defendant paid KRW 5 million to C with the deposit, such as the number plate, while selling it to the Plaintiff, and thereafter, sold the instant vehicle under the condition that D faithfully pays the public charges and installments of the instant vehicle. However, it is difficult to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until the dispute between the parties concerned arises because D and the Defendant arises on the wind that D did not implement the promise.

Unless there are special circumstances to deem that the Defendant succeeded to the obligation against the Defendant, which is the former employees, C or D, to the Plaintiff, the mere fact that the Defendant asserts is the Plaintiff.