1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall receive KRW 1,605,970 from the plaintiff at the same time.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 1, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”) with the Defendant, a company mainly engaged in trucking transport business, under which the ownership of the said vehicle is attributed to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff acquired transport income by independently operating and managing the said vehicle by being entrusted with the right to operate and manage the said vehicle by the Defendant, and in return, paid a certain amount of monthly management fee to the Defendant, and imposed an insurance premium, tax and public dues, and fine for negligence on the vehicle (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”).

B. After that, on June 2007, the Plaintiff changed the instant consignment contract from the said vehicle to the instant vehicle (number D).

C. The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant entrustment contract by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the Defendant, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant on April 12, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in the party court, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Prior to the merits, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the instant lawsuit was unlawful because the Plaintiff had no interest in the lawsuit, as the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the instant motor vehicle on the ground of the termination of the instant entrustment contract, since he/she agreed to conclude the entrustment contract again with the Defendant on June 2007, and did not bring an action.

B. In light of the reasoning of the judgment, Eul evidence No. 3 alone, it is not sufficient to view that the plaintiff and the defendant reached an agreement to bring an action against the above content, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Determination on the cause of the claim 1-related legal principles.