1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. On January 14, 2002, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant entered into an entrustment management contract with the Defendant company operating the automobile transport business, and since the said entrustment management contract was terminated by agreement between the parties or terminated by the expiration of the period, the Defendant is obligated to implement the transfer registration procedure with respect to the instant cargo.

B. We examine the judgment, and there is no specific evidence to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the above consignment management contract on January 14, 2002 regarding the freight of this case, and the Plaintiff’s assertion based on this premise is without merit.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 2, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an entrustment management contract with respect to “Rano five tons’ vehicle” around January 14, 2002, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated the entrustment management contract around May 2010, and again entered into an entrustment management contract with respect to “the instant cargo vehicle” on May 27, 2010, after borrowing and lending the previous vehicle to “the instant cargo vehicle.” Thus, the Plaintiff asserted the termination of the entrustment management contract concluded on May 27, 2010, and sought the implementation of the transfer registration procedure with respect to “the instant cargo vehicle,” as long as the Plaintiff did not seek the implementation of the transfer registration procedure with respect to “the instant cargo vehicle.”

(B) On May 27, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an entrustment contract with the Defendant on the instant cargo vehicle on the following grounds: (a) even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the reasoning of the judgment in this Court Decision 2014Kadan14861, the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant cargo vehicle”).