The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. In the first instance court, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff sought, in its own initiative, the payment of repair costs under the legal doctrine of acting representation, acting as an expression agent or acting as an intermediary in advance, and the Plaintiff did not expressly state the scope of this court’s adjudication, but it was combined in light of the nature of the claim for consolidation

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da96868 Decided May 29, 2014). The first instance court accepted the legal principle of the name lending among the preliminary claims without omitting judgment on the primary claims, and partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim.

However, in the case of preliminary consolidation, several claims are indivisiblely combined into one litigation procedure, so some judgments such as accepting only the conjunctive claims without first judging the main claims are contrary to the nature of the preliminary consolidation, and are not legally allowed.

Therefore, as long as the defendant filed an appeal against the conjunctive claim among the judgment of the court of first instance, the main claim omitted was examined.

As such, (Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da2253 delivered on November 16, 200). The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all subject to the judgment of this court.

2. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, either in the absence of dispute between the parties, or in the records or images of Gap 1 to 11, and Eul 1 to 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply):

On April 2, 2015, the Defendant entered into an entrustment management agreement with D on April 2, 2015, under which the ownership of the instant truck of 4.5 tons (hereinafter referred to as the “instant truck”), which is the land-based vehicle, is the name of the Defendant, and instead of entrusting D with the right to manage the instant vehicle, the Defendant is prohibited from transferring the right to manage the instant truck without the Defendant’s consent.