1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall receive 12,109,370 won from the plaintiff at the same time.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 1, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment management agreement with the Daedong Distribution Complex Limited Partnership (hereinafter referred to as the “Large Distribution Complex”), which is a trucking business operator, to externally transfer the Plaintiff’s ownership to the Dae Distribution Complex (hereinafter referred to as the “former Motor Vehicle”), and to pay monthly management expenses to the Dae Distribution Complex, which the Plaintiff is entrusted with the operation management right and operated under its own account.

Accordingly, on April 1, 2001, the Plaintiff registered the business with the trade name, the trade name, the trade name, and the category of cargo, and operated the Gu automobile.

B. On September 23, 201, the Plaintiff, due to the aging of a motor vehicle of the Gu, as to the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”) between the Korea Distribution Agency (i.e., the Plaintiff and the Korea Distribution Agency).

In the same content, the above consignment management contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) was concluded.

C. Around September 2013, the Defendant taken over the business body from the Dae-Distribution Complex (D).

On June 22, 2015, a duplicate of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the instant contract, was served on the Defendant.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the ground for appeal

2. Determination

A. The instant contract on the cause of claim is in the form of a combination of the title trust and the elements of delegation. As such, the Plaintiff, as the land owner of the instant automobile, is in the position to unilaterally terminate the instant contract with the Defendant, a company incorporated into the instant automobile, and to recover full ownership inside and outside the country, at any time without any special grounds for termination.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da29479 Decided November 11, 1997, etc.). According to the above facts, the instant contract was lawfully terminated on June 22, 2015, where the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination was delivered to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant, barring any special circumstances.