1. On October 6, 2016, the Defendant terminated the consignment management contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s motor vehicles indicated in the attached list.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) On August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff is a truck listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant truck”) between the Defendant and the Defendant.

A) As to the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant, who is a trucking transport business operator, the Plaintiff shall complete the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant, and the terms and conditions that the Plaintiff shall pay monthly entrusted management expenses, etc. to the Defendant while operating the said vehicle upon entrustment

(2) 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 was served on the Defendant on October 6, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The judgment of the owner of a vehicle and the owner of a truck trucking business externally vests the name of the vehicle in trust between the owner of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle in the company where the ownership and the right to manage the vehicle is vested in the company where the ownership and the right to manage the vehicle are vested in the company where the owner of the vehicle are assigned to the owner of the vehicle. In the case of an internal and external agreement on the entrustment of the vehicle with the purport that the owner of the vehicle is entrusted with the right to manage the vehicle in his/her own account and is obliged to pay a certain amount of management expenses to the company to which the owner of the vehicle is assigned while operating the vehicle in accordance with his/her own account, such agreement is a contract in the form of mixing the title trust and the delegation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da85324, Jan. 27, 201

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da29479, Nov. 11, 1997). According to the above facts of recognition, the entrustment contract of this case is deemed to have been lawfully terminated upon arrival of the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination to the Defendant on October 6, 2016, barring any special circumstance.