1. The defendant is paid KRW 4,400,710 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, he is stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On November 1, 200, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment management contract with the Defendant on the part of November 1, 200 with respect to the truck in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant truck”). The Plaintiff entered into an entrustment management contract with the Defendant to pay monthly management expenses and insurance premiums (hereinafter “instant entrustment management contract”) and completed the registration of ownership in the name of the Defendant with respect to the said truck.

On April 18, 2016, a copy of the instant complaint stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant consignment management contract was served on the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 3 and 6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above findings of determination, the above entrustment management contract of this case is in the form of a mixed contract with the elements of the title trust and the delegation, which the plaintiff externally entrusts the ownership of the motor vehicle of this case to the defendant and vests in the defendant's ownership and operation management rights. At home, the plaintiff, the actual borrower of the motor vehicle of this case, who is entrusted with his own operation management rights and is entrusted with the defendant and managed the motor vehicle of this case under his own independent account, and the fees for the use of the defendant's freight trucking services, and the fees for the use of the defendant's registration name and the management fees for the defendant to perform the external management affairs such as paying taxes and public charges on the motor vehicle on behalf of the defendant, etc.

Therefore, the above entrustment management contract of this case was lawfully terminated on April 18, 2016, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case. Thus, the defendant is not obliged to do so, unless there are special circumstances.