소유권이전등기말소 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasons for the statement concerning this case are as follows, except for the deletion and alteration as follows and the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Article 7(5) of the instant trust agreement amended by Article 7(5) of the instant trust agreement provides that prior consent shall be required of the Defendant’s living real estate trust regarding the disposal of priority interest, but the unit agricultural cooperatives, on June 25, 2014, have yet to obtain consent from the Defendant’s living real estate trust. However, the fact that the instant priority interest was transferred to the management of the agricultural property without the Defendant’s living real estate trust on June 25, 2014, while the unit agricultural cooperatives did not obtain consent from the Defendant’s living real estate trust.
However, Article 7(5) of the instant trust agreement providing that the trustee who is the trustee shall obtain prior consent to the disposal of the right to preferential benefit of this case constitutes a special agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the trustee, in order to prevent the occurrence of mixed real estate in the process of settlement by being isolated by the parties claiming the transferee of the right to preferential benefit in the last time to dispose of the trust real estate and settle the proceeds thereof, and thus, the trustee’s prior consent under Article 7(5) of the instant trust agreement should be deemed to have set requirements for setting up against the Defendant, the trustee, in the event that the right to preferential benefit of this case is transferred to a third party.
(i) The prior consent of the trustee cannot be deemed to be a requisite for establishing the transfer of the right to preferential benefit of this case or an effective requirement, as alleged by the plaintiff. In addition, the prior consent agreement concluded by the declaration of intention of the party concerned cannot be deemed to be a requirement for establishing the transfer of the right to preferential benefit of this case.