1. The Defendant terminated the consignment management contract as of June 2, 2016 with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 22, 2010, the Plaintiff, a corporation operating the transport medical service industry, etc., entered into an entrustment management agreement with the Defendant, with the content that the Defendant would allow the Defendant to run the transport medical service providing business using the Plaintiff’s registered name of the business of providing transport medical services, and that the Defendant would pay the insurance premium and tax imposed on the instant vehicle every month, and the fine for negligence imposed on the Plaintiff, a branch company in relation to the instant vehicle operation.

B. However, since the conclusion of the above contract, the Defendant did not pay approximately 170 cases, including automobile tax, fines for violation of inspection of automobiles, expressway tolls, fines for negligence for violation of parking and stopping, and fines for negligence not covered by mandatory insurance, etc.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff declared that the contract was terminated by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay an administrative fine, etc., and the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant on June 2, 2016.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant motor vehicle from the Plaintiff on June 2, 2016, which was the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case.

B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant alleged that the defendant could not respond to the plaintiff's claim of this case because he did not perform his duty to notify the defendant of the fact whenever a fine for negligence is imposed on the vehicle of this case, and the defendant failed to perform it. However, there is no evidence to prove the defendant's above fact, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.