1. The defendant shall receive KRW 1,980,00 from the plaintiff and at the same time, with respect to the motor vehicle stated in the attached sheet from the plaintiff.

1. As to the cause of claim

A. (1) Around 1999, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment management agreement with the Defendant, who is the trucking transport business, to place an automobile indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobile”).

(2) The defendant has been managing the automobile of this case as a branch company under the transfer of ownership transfer registration in his future.

(3) The Plaintiff indicated in the instant complaint that the contract of this case was terminated by the delivery of a copy of the complaint, and the Defendant was served with the same.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. However, the instant contract constitutes an entrustment management contract with the nature of the instant vehicle entry contract.

In ordinary, the entry contract is a combination of title trust and delegation elements, which provide that the Plaintiff, the actual owner, is entrusted with the independent operation management right for the instant motor vehicle under his own account and manages it under his own independent account, and that the Plaintiff, the actual owner, shall pay a certain amount of the monthly management fee to the Defendant for the use of the Defendant’s registered name of freight trucking services, and that the Defendant shall pay a certain amount of the management fee every month to the Defendant as remuneration for performing the external management duties, such as paying taxes and public charges on the instant motor vehicle on behalf of the Defendant.

In the absence of special circumstances, the delegating of the contract as above and the Plaintiff, who is in the position of the title truster, may terminate the contract of this case at any time.

On November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant contract by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint.

Therefore, since the contract of this case was lawfully terminated, the defendant does not have any special reason to the plaintiff.