1. The defendant

A. On February 11, 2015, with respect to the motor vehicles indicated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff, the termination of the consignment management contract.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 11, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into the instant consignment management contract with the Defendant to the effect that “the title of ownership of the instant vehicle belongs to the Plaintiff externally, and the Defendant manages and operates the instant vehicle within the country, and the Defendant shall pay management expenses of KRW 250,000 (value-added tax separate) monthly, and the Plaintiff shall provide administrative support related to the instant vehicle.”

B. When the Defendant delayed the payment of management expenses under the entrusted management contract of this case, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the payment of management expenses.

Nevertheless, on February 11, 2015, the Defendant failed to pay management expenses, and the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant the intent to terminate the instant consignment management contract.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The instant consignment management contract, including restitution following the termination of the contract, was lawfully terminated according to the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the grounds that the Defendant did not pay management expenses.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to take over the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the instant motor vehicle from the plaintiff to the original state, and pay the amount equivalent to the management expenses calculated by the ratio of KRW 275,000 per month from June 1, 2015 to the completion date of the acquisition of the above ownership transfer registration procedure.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant claimed that “The Defendant has monetary claims exceeding the management expenses in arrears against the Plaintiff, and that set off it with the automatic claim would have no management expenses in arrears.” According to the evidence No. 1, the Defendant’s assertion of termination is unreasonable.” According to the evidence No. 1, the Defendant’s argument that “The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 4,00,000 to the Defendant,” which was filed against the Plaintiff on November 19, 2014 from the Busan High Court No. 2014Na228, Nov. 19, 2014.