1. The Defendant terminated the entrustment contract from the Plaintiff on February 10, 2016 with respect to the motor vehicles indicated in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract with the deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”) on the motor vehicle indicated in the attached list owned by the deceased (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”). However, the deceased entered into the said entrustment contract (hereinafter “the instant land purchase contract”) with the Plaintiff to pay a certain amount of money monthly assignment management fees.

B. From February 2016, the Deceased did not pay the site management fees, and on February 10, 2016, the Plaintiff expressed to the Deceased the intent to terminate the instant site management contract.

C. Before the death of the Deceased on December 8, 2018, the Deceased did not serve a duplicate of the warden on the Deceased.

The heir is the defendant, who is his child, and the defendant was issued with the Seoul Family Court a ruling of acceptance of a qualified acceptance report on the inheritance of the deceased (the Seoul Family Court 2019Hun-Ba574).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of the determination on the cause of the claim, the instant land entry contract was lawfully terminated due to the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant land entry contract on the ground of the deceased’s failure to perform his/her duties, and the Defendant, as the inheritor of the deceased, is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure on the instant automobile on the ground of the termination of the instant land entry contract on February 10, 2016.

Therefore, although the defendant alleged that he reported the qualified acceptance on the deceased's property inheritance, the qualified acceptance on the inheritance is limited to the scope of the inherited property to be acquired by the inheritor's liability. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted on the ground of the reasons.