2. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

2. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning each of the above parts are as stated in the “1. Recognition” and “2. The parties’ assertion” of the first instance judgment, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. Under the relevant legal trust agreement, in the case of so-called self-profit trust where a truster becomes a beneficiary himself/herself, the trust property is excluded from the truster's responsible property, on the other hand, the truster's creditor is entitled to obtain the beneficiary right under the trust agreement, and the truster's creditor is entitled to enforce compulsory execution against the truster's creditor. Unlike the act that the debtor sells real estate, which is the only property, and changes in money easily to consume, it is difficult for the truster to dispose of compulsory execution by ordinary creditors. In particular, if the trustee is a trust business that engages in a business with authorization under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and engages in a trust business, it is possible to expect the truster to perform the reliable trust affairs. Thus, when determining whether the trust property constitutes a fraudulent act, the truster's trust property merely goes beyond the truster's responsible property to become insolvent, but it should be determined by examining whether the truster's motive and content of the trust contract, status of the truster, and the other party of the trust's ability to pay back to the truster's debt or its ability to repay.

(See Supreme Court Order 2009Ma1176 dated May 23, 201, etc.). B.

The trust contract of this case for preserved bonds.