1. The Defendant terminated the consignment management contract on September 15, 2017 with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Fact 1) On September 16, 2013, the Plaintiff is a motor vehicle listed in the Defendant and the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”).

2) As to the above consignment management contract (hereinafter “instant contract”)

(2) The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant contract by serving the instant complaint on the Defendant, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant on September 15, 2017.

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

B. In a case where an owner of a vehicle and an automobile transport business operator externally trust the name of the vehicle in his/her possession to a vehicle transport business operator (hereinafter referred to as a “branch owner”), and the ownership and the right to manage the operation of the vehicle in his/her possession belongs to the company where the ownership and the right to manage the vehicle in his/her possession are vested. In a case where the “vehicle management contract” is entered into between the owner of the vehicle and the automobile transport business operator with the intent to pay a certain amount of management expenses to the company to which the vehicle belongs in his/her own account upon entrustment of the right to manage the vehicle in his/her own account, this is a form of a contract in which the title trust and the delegation are combined. As such, upon the termination of the above contract, the owner of the vehicle may claim for the return of the trust property to the company to which the owner of the vehicle belongs,

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da85324, 2010Da85331 (Counterclaim) Decided January 27, 201 (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da85324, 201). Accordingly, a delegating and a managing owner, who is in the position of a truster, is in the position of unilaterally terminating an entry contract between the managing company and the managing company and recovering full ownership inside and outside the country.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da29479 delivered on November 11, 1997, etc.). C.

Judgment

Therefore, the contract of this case is delivered to the defendant with a copy of the complaint of this case containing the plaintiff's expression of intent to terminate.