1. The defendant,

A. On September 20, 2019, the termination of the consignment management contract on the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment management contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to pay KRW 440,000 per month management expenses to the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff was entrusted with the management right and operated under its own account.

B. On April 4, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff as to the instant automobile.

C. The Defendant did not pay management expenses, etc. after January 2019, and on September 16, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant contract will be terminated if he did not pay management expenses, etc. by September 20, 2019.

The management expenses and unpaid public charges that the defendant did not pay to the plaintiff by the notice of termination of the contract are 6,360,000 won.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant contract was lawfully terminated on September 20, 2019 following the notice of termination of the contract.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the automobile of this case due to the termination of the above contract from the plaintiff, and pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from May 29, 2020 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the day of this decision, to the day of complete payment.

B. As to this, the defendant did not pay management expenses, etc. according to the fact that the plaintiff lost the automobile number plate of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is unjustifiable. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.