1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) received KRW 209,570 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and simultaneously received KRW 209,570 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Basic facts

A. On May 25, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on May 25, 2001, in the name of ownership of an automobile listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobile”). However, the Plaintiff, while operating the automobile upon entrustment, paid a certain amount of management expenses (242,00 won, including value-added tax, in the case of 2013) to the Defendant in return for the entrustment, and entered into an entrustment management contract with the effect that the Plaintiff would pay insurance money, taxes and public charges, etc. (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On March 13, 2014, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant contract to the Defendant by serving a duplicate of the main complaint of this case, and the duplicate of the main complaint was served on the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as to the cause of the principal claim, the instant contract is a form of contract in which the Plaintiff externally entrusts the ownership of the instant vehicle to the Defendant, registers the ownership and the right to manage the said vehicle under the name of the Defendant, and, in its internal context, the Plaintiff, the actual borrower of the instant vehicle, entrusted the Defendant with the right to manage its own operation under his own independent account, operates and manages the instant vehicle under his own independent account, and the fees for using the Defendant’s registered name of trucking transport business, and the Defendant paid the fixed management expenses every month in the name of the commission for performing external management affairs, such as paying taxes and public charges on the instant vehicle.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da29479 delivered on November 11, 1997). Accordingly, the Plaintiff, who is a delegating and title truster, may terminate the contract at any time, regardless of the duration of the contract. Therefore, barring any special circumstance.