2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. Defendant KF real estate trust company (hereinafter “Defendant trust company”) implements the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the termination of part of the trust on the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case by Plaintiff 1 as of February 26, 2007, the real estate security trust contract as of February 26, 2007, and the real estate security trust modification contract as of March 27, 2008.

B. On August 16, 2007, the Defendant executor shall implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of sale to Plaintiff 1.

2.As to real estate in the annex No. 2. As to real estate:

A. Defendant trust company implements the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the partial termination of the trust date and part of the copy of the complaint of this case as of February 26, 2007, and the real estate security trust contract of March 27, 2008, as to the real estate security trust contract of March 27, 2008.

B. On November 26, 2007, Defendant Executing the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of sale to Plaintiff 2.

3. Defendant Barun Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Barun”) expressed his/her intent to terminate part of the trust on the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to Defendant Trust Company by the Plaintiffs.

A. From October 2003, Defendant enforcement company started the business (hereinafter “instant business”) of newly constructing and selling the so-called “Saerochip” (hereinafter only referred to as “the instant business”) on the ground that the instant land was incorporated into the said land (number omitted) and 12 parcels, which were located in the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”). From around October 1, 2003, Defendant enforcement company obtained a loan from a financial institution to secure the repayment of the principal and interest of the instant land, and became a collateral trust to a trust company to obtain a loan from the financial institution and secure the repayment of the principal and interest of the land.

B. On October 23, 2003, the Defendant Company entered into an agreement to borrow business funds from Hansung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and two companies. On October 24, 2003, Han Bank Co., Ltd. as trust company and entrusted the instant land to Han Bank.

C. On January 10, 2006, the Defendant Company concluded a loan agreement with the National Bank of Korea (the Defendant Corporation also becomes a co-party as a co-party partner) on the part of the Defendant Company, and the trust agreement with the Han Bank was terminated on October 23, 2003, and on October 24, 2003. On January 10, 2006, the Defendant Company concluded a real estate trust agreement with the Defendant Trust Company and entrusted the instant land to the Defendant Trust Company.

D. Around the end of February 2007, the Defendant City Mayor and the Defendant trust company, as the completion of the instant commercial building, terminated the said real estate security trust contract as of January 10, 2006 to conclude a trust contract with the instant commercial building as well as the instant commercial building.

E. On February 26, 2007, the Defendant Company concluded a real estate security trust agreement with Defendant Trust Company on the instant land. On March 7, 2007, the Defendant Company concluded a real estate security trust agreement with Defendant Trust Company on the instant commercial buildings.

F. On March 23, 2007, the Defendant Company entered into a loan agreement under the agreement on debt acquisition between the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company, and entered into an agreement on January 10, 2006, which was concluded between the Defendant Company and the Korean Bank. On March 23, 2007, the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company entered into a contract on the change of the real estate security trust agreement by changing the first beneficiary under the said loan agreement from the “Non-Blllllllllllllllllllllllld Limited Company” to the “Bllllllllllllllllllllllllld Co., Ltd.,” and on July 10, 2007, the said agreement was concluded to change the real estate security trust agreement by changing the second priority beneficiary to the Defendant Corporation.

G. On January 22, 2008, the Defendant Simn Capital Co., Ltd. and the Defendant Simn Corporation entered into a business agreement to amend the loan agreement as of March 23, 2007. On March 27, 2008, the first priority beneficiary company entered into a contract to amend the real estate security trust agreement with the content that the first priority beneficiary company was changed from the “Slun Capital Corporation” to the “Defendant Corporation.”

H. Meanwhile, on August 16, 2007, Plaintiff 1 entered into a sales contract with the Defendant Si with respect to real estate No. 1 as indicated in the attached Table No. 96,674,500 won, and agreed to bear KRW 15,400,000,000 for shopping district development, separate from the sales price. Plaintiff 1 paid KRW 1,000,000 (provisional contract) on August 14, 2007 pursuant to the above sales contract and the shopping district development agreement, August 16, 2007, KRW 4,067,450, and KRW 39,000,000 on September 28, 2007, KRW 20,000 on October 5, 2007, KRW 39,000 on August 39, 207, and KRW 406,506,00.

I. On November 26, 2007, Defendant 2 entered into a sales center sales contract with the Defendant Si’s event with the sale price of KRW 103,790,000 for real estate indicated in the attached Table 2. Defendant 2 paid KRW 94,00,000 for the total amount of KRW 16,100 on November 26, 2007, and KRW 14,568,500 on November 26, 2007, and KRW 78,521,50 on December 3, 2007.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract on each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) with the Defendant’s exercise and paid the sales price in full, the Defendant trust company shall perform the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant real estate on the grounds of partial termination of the real estate trust agreement on February 26, 2007 and the contract for the modification of the real estate trust agreement on the instant commercial building on March 27, 2008, on the ground that the real estate trust agreement on the instant land as of March 26, 2007 and the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant real estate on the grounds of sale and purchase to the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant trust company shall have the duty to express each consent to the Defendant trust company on the declaration of intention to terminate each

(1) According to Articles 1 and 4(1)1 of the Act on Sale of Building Units, and Article 3(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, each of the above trust contracts entered into between the defendant Si and the defendant trust company are given priority to the buyers rather than the beneficiaries under the trust agreement. However, since each of the above trust contracts entered into between the defendant Si and the defendant trust company does not have priority over the beneficiaries under the trust agreement, it is null and void as it does not have priority over the beneficiaries under the trust agreement, the defendant corporation, who is the first beneficiary, has the duty to express

(2) According to the construction contract concluded on October 23, 2003 between the exercise of the defendant city and the defendant city, the defendant city corporation is in the position of a kind of joint business proprietor, such as acquiring the business license, if the defendant city corporation is unable to continue its business, and according to Article 22(1)4 of the loan agreement between the defendant city and the national bank, the defendant city corporation is obligated to give implied consent even if it is the priority beneficiary upon termination of the trust contract for the defendant city.

(3) Since the purpose of each trust agreement on the instant land and commercial buildings between the Defendant City Mayor and the Defendant trust company includes the part of the performance of the obligation to the buyer of the Defendant City, the buyer shall obtain, in certain cases, direct and indirect rights to the beneficiary or the trustee based on the trust agreement.

(4) On January 22, 2008, when acquiring the obligation for loans to the Defendant Sinp Capital Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant Sinp has identified the unsold quantity until the time. The right to sell the unsold quantity was not unilaterally entrusted to the Defendant’s executor, but the Defendant’s executor prevented the sale of the unsold quantity without the consent of the Defendant Sinp Capital Co., Ltd., and even when selling the unsold quantity with the consent of the Defendant Sinp Corporation, the Defendant Sinp has to deposit all the sales proceeds in the national bank account (Account Number: omitted) of the Defendant’s event. Accordingly, on March 23, 2007, the Defendant Sinp has acquired the instant business right from the Defendant’s executor pursuant to Article 11(1)2 of the Loan Agreement and received the obligation to carry out the registration procedure for transfer of ownership against the Plaintiffs, the buyer of the Defendant’s real estate in this case.

(5) The time when the Defendant City Corporation limited the sales price receipt account to the national bank account (Account Number: omitted) on January 22, 2008, and there was no explicit restriction on the Defendant Company’s receipt of the sales price to any deposit account before that time. The Plaintiffs completed the payment of the sales price to the national bank account (Account Number: omitted) as set out in the sales contract on each of the instant real estate prior to that time of the said restriction.

In addition, in the above national bank account in which the plaintiffs paid the sales price, there are circumstances in which other buyers than the plaintiffs paid the money as the sales price, and some of them are considered to have been paid to the defendant corporation.

In full view of the above circumstances, it is presumed that the defendant's executor knew that he received the sale price from the purchaser from the above national bank account that the defendant's executor paid the purchase price.

Even if it was unaware of the above facts, Defendant Enforcement Company had the authority to sell each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs did not know that the receipt account of the purchase price was limited to a certain account, so the Defendants are obligated to perform the same obligation as stated in the claims against the Plaintiffs.

B. Determination

(1) 먼저 원고가 주장하는 건축물의 분양에 관한 법률(이하 ‘건축물분양법’이라고만 한다) 등의 관련 규정들이 강행의 효력규정에 해당하는지 여부에 관하여 살피건대, ① 건축물분양법의 목적은 건축물의 ‘분양절차 및 방법’에 관한 사항을 정함으로써 ‘건축물 분양과정의 투명성’과 ‘거래 안전성’을 확보하여 분양받는 자를 보호하고 국민경제의 건전한 발전에 이바지함에 있는 점( 제1조 ), ② 위 관련 규정에 위반한 부동산 신탁계약·대리사무계약이 그 자체의 사법상의 효력까지도 부인하지 않으면 안 될 정도로 현저히 반사회성, 반도덕성을 지닌 것이라고 할 수 없을 뿐만 아니라 반드시 부동산 신탁계약·대리사무계약의 사법상의 효력을 부인하여야만 비로소 건축물분양법의 목적을 이룰 수 있다고 볼 수도 없는 점{ 건축법 제8조 의 규정에 의한 허가권자가 분양사업자로부터 신탁계약서 등을 구비한 분양신고를 받고 그 내용을 검토하여 분양신고의 수리 여부를 판단하면서 관련 규정의 준수 여부를 심사함( 제5조 )과 동시에 건축물분양법의 형사처벌 규정( 제10조 )을 통하여 건축물분양법의 목적이나 입법취지를 충분히 구현할 수 있다}, ③ 무효화하는 효력 규정이 명문으로 존재하지 않음에도 불구하고 개별 법규를 강행의 효력규정으로 해석하여 그 법규 위반 행위를 무효화하는 경우, 이는 절대적 무효여서 선의의 제3자 보호에 문제가 있고 그 해석 기준의 불명확성으로 법적 안정성에도 반하므로, 당해 법규에 무효화하는 효력 규정이 명문으로 존재하지 않는 이상 입법자의 객관적 의사는 단속규정으로 봄이 타당하고, 명문의 규정이 없음에도 해석으로 강행의 효력규정으로 보는 것은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 가급적이면 제한적으로 봄이 바람직 한데 건축물분양법 규정에 위반한 부동산 신탁계약·대리사무계약을 무효로 하는 명문의 규정이 건축물분양법에 존재하지 아니하는 점, ④ 건축물분양법 및 그 시행령의 관련 규정과 유사한 입법취지·목적·내용 등을 담아 의무 규정의 형식으로 규정된 구 주택건설촉진법 제32조(2002. 8. 26. 법률 제6732호로 개정되기 전의 것) 및 구 주택공급에 관한 규칙에 위반된 경우 그 사법적 효력까지 부인된다고 보고 있지는 않는 점 등을 종합하면, 건축물분양법령 중 원고가 주장하는 관련 규정은 강행의 효력규정이 아닌 단속규정에 지나지 아니하고, 따라서 위 관련 규정에 위반하여 법률행위가 이루어졌더라도 그 행위의 사법상 효력에는 아무런 영향이 없다.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion on the premise that the above building sale law is a mandatory provision is without merit.

(2) Next, Article 22(1)4 of the Loan Agreement of October 23, 2003 provides that the project implementation right shall be transferred to the defendant Si Corporation in accordance with the project agreement of October 23, 2003, whether the defendant Si Corporation is in the position of joint business and whether the defendant Si Corporation has an implied obligation to consent to the termination of the trust agreement of the defendant Si Corporation pursuant to the loan agreement of January 10, 2006, Article 4 of the Special Conditions of Construction Contract (Evidence B-3) provides that "where it is deemed that the defendant implementer is unable to repay the construction cost or project cost, or the principal and interest interest of the project is due to the obligation to exercise the defendant Si which is not related to the construction project, and that the project implementation right shall be repaid to the defendant Si Corporation in accordance with the project implementation agreement of October 23, 200, and the balance may not be deemed an exercise of the defendant corporation by mutual consultation and adjustment of the repayment period." However, the above provision alone does not provide that the defendant corporation still has an obligation to exercise of the loan agreement of 10.

(3) In addition, each trust contract for the land and commercial buildings of this case is to protect the right of the priority beneficiary and to preserve the trust property, and to secure the preferential repayment of the principal and interest of the loan. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion that the trust contract of this case also aims to protect the rights of the buyer, regardless of the case where the buyer gains the preferential repayment of the principal and interest of the loan, is without merit.

(4) Furthermore, according to the records of Eul evidence Nos. 4-3 (Business Agreement) by the defendant's executor after acquiring the business right of this case from the defendant's executor, the defendant's executor prepared a business agreement with the defendant's executor on Jan. 22, 2008, and Article 5 of the Business Agreement provides that "All responsibilities related to the sale of this case's business (including all unsold goods and unsold goods) and all responsibilities related to civil petitions, lawsuits, etc. (including all unsold goods and unsold goods) shall be borne exclusively by the defendant's executor, and in any case, the defendant's executor shall not take over and succeed to the business right of this case." According to the above facts of recognition, it can be deemed that the defendant's contractor explicitly agreed that the defendant's executor would not take over the business right of the defendant's executor, and therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion against this is without merit.

(5) Finally, it is examined whether the plaintiffs paid the sale price before the time limit of the sale price receipt account, or whether the defendant executor has the right to terminate each of the trust contracts of this case.

① According to the statement in Eul evidence 4-1 (a loan agreement), the part of the plaintiffs' assertion that the payment receipt account was limited to the national bank account (Account Number omitted) on January 22, 2008, since the defendant enforcement company limited the payment receipt account at the time of entering into a loan agreement with a lotl Capital Co., Ltd. (the defendant's obligation assumption agreement) on March 23, 2007.

② It is difficult to view that the Defendant City Corporation was aware of the fact that the sales price of the buyers, including the Plaintiffs, was deposited in the national bank account (Account Number omitted) in which the Plaintiffs paid the sales price, and that the money withdrawn from the said account was deposited in the Defendant City Corporation. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

③ As seen earlier, Defendant Pilot Corporation exists in the beneficiary who takes precedence over Defendant Execution Company. As such, each of the instant trust contracts is another profit trust for which Defendant Execution Company, the truster, is unable to terminate at will, and thus, a trust contract may be terminated only when there is a ground for termination stipulated in the relevant trust contract (Articles 58 and 56 of the Trust Act).

However, according to the evidence Nos. 6-2 and 3 (each real estate trust deed) of this case, each real estate trust contract for the land and commercial buildings of this case can be acknowledged as terminated when the truster terminates the trust contract with the first beneficiary, when the truster terminates the trust contract with the second beneficiary, when the truster terminates the trust contract with the second beneficiary, when the truster terminates the trust contract with the due to unavoidable reasons, such as natural disasters, etc., or when it is impossible or considerably difficult to achieve the purpose of the trust due to changes in economic conditions, etc., and when the trustee terminates the trust contract with the trustee after consultation with the trustee, it can be acknowledged as terminated even before the expiration of the trust contract (Articles 24(1), 23(1) and (2), and 17(1) of the above trust contract with the first beneficiary, even before the expiration of the trust contract (Article 24(1), 23(1) and (2), and 17(1) of the above trust contract with the defendant trust company. In this case where there is no assertion or proof about

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, each of the plaintiffs' above arguments is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants of this case are without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Mok-ok