1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid below is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 27, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment management agreement with Defendant A on the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”). Around May 27, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to entrust the Defendant with the management right to the instant motor vehicle with the management right to the effect that the Plaintiff may terminate the contract where the Plaintiff was delinquent in paying management expenses of KRW 220,000 every month from Defendant A and the amount to be borne by Defendant A, such as management expenses, for more than three months

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed various duties of Defendant A under the instant contract.

C. As Defendant A delayed payment of management expenses, automobile tax, etc. up to June 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order with the Changwon District Court 2012 tea 200, which became final and conclusive around June 15, 2012. Defendant A delayed payment of management expenses, automobile tax, administrative fine, etc. from July 2012 even thereafter.

The plaintiff expressed his/her intention to terminate the contract of this case on the ground that the above management expenses, etc. were in arrears for at least three months through the delivery of a copy of the complaint, and the above copy of the complaint was served on June 11, 2015 to Defendant A and on June 15, 2015 to Defendant B, respectively.

【Ground of recognition】 Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the claim causes, the instant contract was lawfully terminated according to the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the grounds of unpaid payment, such as Defendant A’s management expenses. Therefore, Defendant A is obligated to take over the transfer of ownership registration procedure for the instant automobile from the Plaintiff as the restoration following the termination of the contract. 2) The Defendants’ assertion as to the Defendants is the instant automobile is a vehicle aged in 1996, and the instant automobile is a vehicle deteriorated in the form of 1996, and it was not operated properly due to the Plaintiff’s replacement.