1. On March 4, 2019, the Defendant caused the termination of the entrustment contract with respect to each of the vehicles listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. Where there is no dispute between the parties to the determination of the cause of the claim, or when comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the motor vehicles listed in subparagraph 1, subparagraph 2-1, and subparagraph 2-2, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet No. 2 of July 15, 2014, the fact that each of the above entrustment contract was concluded on March 29, 2017, and that the complaint of this case, stating the intent to terminate each of the above entrustment contract, delivered to the Defendant on March 4, 2019, is clear.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that each of the above consignment contracts was terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent on March 4, 2019. As such, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on March 4, 2019 with respect to each of the instant automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant automobiles”) to the Plaintiff on March 4, 2019.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that since the plaintiff cannot apply for permission for freight trucking services for each of the motor vehicles of this case, the plaintiff cannot comply with the plaintiff's claim.

However, the claim of this case seeking the fulfillment of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on each of the instant automobiles due to the termination of the entrustment contract cannot be deemed to include the right to permit the transportation business of each of the instant automobiles, or the purport of transferring the registration number of the automobile for the transportation business or its number plate premised thereon.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da737 Decided April 26, 2013). Therefore, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion cannot be deemed a valid defense against the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the transfer of ownership on each of the instant automobiles, and therefore, is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.