[2] In a case where Gap corporation acquired land secured by the development recompense from Eul corporation, the executor of the land readjustment project, from Eul corporation, and completed the transfer of land secured by the development recompense, and entered into a management trust agreement with Byung corporation, which is the trust company, to manage and preserve the ownership of real estate trusted for trust purposes, and to fixed beneficiaries, Eul corporation completed the transfer of the land secured by the development recompense for the development recompense for the development recompense for the development recompense for the development recompense for the development recompense for Eul corporation, and Gap corporation was awarded the transfer of the land secured by payment from Gap corporation before the conclusion of the trust agreement, Gap corporation received the above development recompense for the development recompense for the development recompense for the development recompense for the development recompense for the land, and Gap corporation received the transfer of the real estate in favor of Eul corporation after the completion of the trust contract, and sought the cancellation procedure for the transfer of the trust, etc. in the name of Byung corporation in lieu of Byung corporation at the time of the development recompense for development recompense for the development recompense for the development recompense for the development recompense for the development recompense for the development recompense for the development outlay for the trust

[2] In a case where Gap corporation acquired land secured by the development recompense from Eul, the executor of a land readjustment project, from Eul, and completed the transfer of land secured by the development recompense for development recompense, and completed the management trust agreement with Byung corporation, which is the trust company, to manage and preserve the ownership of real estate for trust purposes, and to fixed beneficiaries, Eul corporation completed the transfer of the above land secured by the development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay, Eul corporation received the above land transfer from Gap corporation before the conclusion of the trust agreement, and won the lawsuit against Gap corporation, and completed the transfer of the land, and Gap corporation received the above land transfer execution after completion of the trust contract, and Gap corporation sought the execution of the procedure for cancellation of the trust, etc. in the name of Byung company in the name of Byung company on behalf of Byung company, after the termination of the trust contract, Byung company did not return the trust property to the person who is the owner of the trust property at the time of termination of the trust contract, and Eul company, the truster corporation, the truster, the trust owner of the development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay for development outlay, etc.

The allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is nothing more than the argument on the merits that the subrogation claim does not exist, and cannot be viewed as the argument on the standing to be a party. This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds of appeal as to the existence of subrogation claim.

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts.

(1) The co-defendants Co-defendants Co-defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co-Defendants Co., Ltd.”), assigned

(2) On April 13, 2004, anti-do housing entered into a management trust agreement with the Defendant on the following terms: (a) on April 13, 2004, 13 block 13 block 13,820 square meters before the change; (b) divided into 12 block 12 block 13,820 square meters; and (c) on January 25, 2005, 12 block 561 square meters; and (d) on the instant 12 block 1 and 2 lot, the Defendant entered into a management trust agreement (hereinafter “management trust agreement of this case”) with the content that “the beneficiary shall manage and preserve the real estate on trust: (e) the postal bond construction company; and (e) the trust period: January 26, 2006.” (hereinafter “instant management trust agreement”); and (e) the Defendant completed the transfer, etc. of land secured for recompense of development outlay in the land register of

(3) On January 25, 2006, the housing and the Defendant changed the trust term of the instant management trust agreement to January 26, 2007. On May 22, 2007, 2007, the trust term of the instant management trust agreement was changed to the end of January. 26, 2007. On May 22, 2007, the trust term was concluded a security trust agreement with the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, trust principal and trust beneficiary: (a) the trust agreement with the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, trust principal and trust beneficiary, and debtor: (b) the trust agreement with the “instant security trust agreement” (hereinafter “instant security trust agreement”).

(4) Meanwhile, on January 30, 1998, the semi-do Housing agreed to transfer 13 block 1 unit before changing to the Plaintiff as payment in kind. The Plaintiff completed the transfer execution of real estate on February 7, 2007 for the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay (hereinafter “the instant land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay”) as part of the judgment of the Plaintiff upon receipt of the judgment ordering the transfer of land against the anti-do Housing.

B. Based on the above factual basis, the lower court determined as follows on the following selective claims that the Plaintiff exercised the right to claim the cancellation of the registration of trust, etc. in the name of the Defendant on the registry of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay in the instant case

Since the expiration of the trust period on January 26, 2007, the management trust contract of this case was terminated, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of the trust, etc. on the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay on the ledger of land secured for development recompense for development recompense for the housing Do, and the plaintiff is entitled to request the cancellation of the registration of the trust, etc. in subrogation of the housing in order to preserve the right to claim the change of ownership on the ledger of land secured for development recompense for development recompense for the housing Do. Even if the housing and the defendant agreed to use the existing trust, etc. in concluding the trust trust contract of this case on May 22, 2007, when entering into the trust contract of this case on May 22, 2007, the plaintiff transferred the land secured for development recompense for development outlay for the land to a third party, and such utilization agreement is null and void

C. According to Articles 60 and 61 of the former Trust Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10924, Jul. 25, 2011); in cases where a trust is terminated, if the right holder to whom the trust property belongs belongs determines on the act of trust, the trust property shall revert to the right holder to whom it belongs; in cases where there is no provision on the act of trust, it shall belong to the truster or his/her heir; and in cases where there is no provision on the act of trust, the truster or his/her heir; and in cases where the trustee manages and transfers the trust property to the right holder to whom it reverts, it shall continue to exist as a legal trust relationship aimed at managing and transferring the trust property to

In light of the above legal principles, even if the facts acknowledged by the court below are based on the premise of the facts established by the court below, the defendant is obligated to return the trust property to the person designated as the person with the right to whom the trust property belongs under the trust contract at the time of the termination of the management trust contract in this case, and to return it to the Do-do Housing, the truster, only in the absence of any provision in the trust contract. However, while the court below acknowledged the beneficiary of the management trust in this case as the postal administration construction corporation, it did not properly consider who is the truster at the time of the management trust contract in this case (Article 15 (3) of the Management Trust Contract in this case can be seen to have been issued to the trustee at the time of the termination of trust (Article 15 (3) of the Management Trust Contract in this case, which provides that the trustee shall deliver the trust property to the beneficiary at the time of the termination of trust). In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the attribution

D. In addition, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant completed the registration of a transferee in the existing ledger of land secured for recompense of development outlay indicated as 13 block 1 unit prior to the amendment under the instant management trust agreement, but this is inconsistent with the allegations of the parties, and rather, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it may be deemed that the transferee, etc. in the above existing ledger of land secured for recompense of development outlay did not have completed the registration of a transferee in the above previous ledger of land secured for recompense of development outlay. Accordingly, after the remand, the lower court pointed out that the Defendant needs to additionally examine whether

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Min You-sook (Presiding Justice)