A. The trustee in bankruptcy of the defendant Kim Chang-ro Co., Ltd. shall receive each of the money listed in the column for the "sale price by square" in attached Form 4. from the plaintiffs listed in the plaintiff's list on attached Form 1, and at the same time, shall the above plaintiffs:

(1) The procedures for the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on January 30, 2009 with respect to each of the real estate recorded in the column for “leased real estate” in attached Form 3.

(2) Of the 115 Bridge 1-1 lot 38,214 square meters in the Jinsan-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Ulsan-do, the procedure for the change of purchaser’s name on the purchase and sale ledger of land secured by the development recompense for development outlay located in the Jin-gu, Ulsan-do, and the land rearrangement project district, as indicated in attached Table 3.

B. The Defendant Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd.:

(1) As to each immovable property described in the “leased” column in Appendix 3.

(A) Ulsan District Court, China District Court, followed the procedure for cancellation registration of trust registration completed on February 4, 2005 by the receipt No. 9031;

(B) implement the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership on January 30, 2009 on the ground of termination of the trust held by the court; and

(2) Of the 115 Bridge 1-1 lot 38,214 square meters in the Jinsan-dong, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do, the procedures for the change of purchaser’s name on the trade ledger of land allotted in the development recompense for development recompense for development outlay located in the Jin-gu, Ulsan-do, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Readjustment Project District, for the share of 25647.1908/38214 square meters due to the termination of the trust on January 30, 2009.

C. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the bankruptcy trustee of the defendant Kim Chang-chul Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

2. 50% of the total litigation cost between the plaintiffs and the defendants shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendants, and 50% of the total litigation cost due to the participation in the subsidy shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendants, respectively.

A. A. The trustee in bankruptcy of the defendant bankruptcy debtor corporation in bankruptcy (hereinafter "the defendant trustee in bankruptcy"): the defendant trustee in bankruptcy shall conduct the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for each of the real estate stated in the plaintiff's list on January 21, 2009 (hereinafter "the plaintiffs"), the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of sale on the date of delivery of the application for alteration of the purport and the reason for alteration in the list of attached Form 3, and the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for each of the real estate stated in the "leased real estate" on January 21, 2009 in the list of Attached Form 3, "site shares" in the list of Attached Form 115-1-1 T, 38,214 square meters among the list of Attached Form 3, among the 115-1, 38,214 square meters of land rearrangement districts in Ulsan-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, and the date of delivery of the application for alteration of the purport and the reason for alteration.

B. Defendant Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Korea Land Trust”): It is so ordered as per Disposition 1-B.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by the overall purport of the arguments in each of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 4, 5, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 4 and 5.

A. Status of the parties

원고들은 평창토건 주식회사(이하 ‘평창토건’이라 한다)로부터 건설임대주택을 임차한 사람들이고, 평창토건은 토목건축공사업을 목적으로 하는 회사이며, 피고 한국토지신탁은 신탁업법에 의한 부동산의 신탁 등을 목적으로 하는 회사이다.

(b) Public announcement of the invitation of occupants of deliberation proposals;

In March 2001, Pyeongtaek Chang-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which received funding from the National Housing Fund, announced the invitation of occupants by attaching the following terms of sale in lots to the 3rd apartment apartment units 827 units (hereinafter referred to as "pun Chang-gu third apartment units") of the constructed rental housing units, which were scheduled to be constructed in 115 block 1-1 unit in the Jinsan-dong Special Metropolitan City, Ulsan Special Metropolitan City, Ulsan Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu.

· the timing of conversion into sale: Five years from the first day of the month following the month in which the date of first designation of occupancy ends;

· the scope of repair of the housing in question: External design;

· Calculation Criteria: the average of the construction cost and the appraisal value in accordance with the Ministry of Construction and Transportation (Guidelines for the Construction and Management of Public Rental Housing).

- The price of conversion for sale in lots shall not exceed the amount obtained by deducting the depreciation costs during the rental period from the price of the relevant house calculated at the time of conversion in lots based on the construction costs of rental housing and housing

-Recovery of deposit: A lessee may have the fixed date prescribed in Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act after entering into a lease contract, and the lessee has the preferential right to pay the deposit.

* Construction cost = (The housing price as at the time of publication for recruiting occupants) + (interest on self-funds during the lease period) - (Depreciation Costs)

* Housing value at the time of publication of recruitment of occupants

The construction cost for apartment buildings of 87,133,57 square meters (28.01 square meters) and the construction cost for apartment buildings of 22,346,723 64,786,848 84.9841 square meters (32.26 square meters) 101,385,701 26,544,110 74,841,5911,591

C. Conclusion of a lease agreement between the plaintiffs and Pyeongtaek-gu

In November 2003, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “each of the instant rental housing”) with respect to each of the real estate stated in the “leased Real Estate” column (hereinafter “each of the instant rental housing”) in attached Form 3, which includes the following terms and conditions for the sale of rental housing, and occupied each of the rental housing around that time. The Plaintiffs thereafter paid each of the lease deposit stated in the “Security Deposit” column in attached Form 3, as between December 2005 and December 2006.

< The sale conditions of rental housing included in each of the lease agreements of this case>

Article 12 (Sale of Rental Housing)

(1) "A" shall sell the above house in accordance with the following conditions:

1. The sale time of the above house shall be five years from the first day of the month following the month in which the period of initial occupancy ends;

2. The sale price calculation standards of the relevant rental house shall be determined by the announcement of invitation.

3.Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 above, if "A" and "B (Lessee)" agree on sale at the expiration of two years and six months after the commencement of the lease, they shall enter into a sales contract at the time of the agreement, provided that the lessee is a non-resident.

(2) Where a “A” sells a house to another rental business operator (hereinafter referred to as “the sick”) pursuant to the provisions of Article 9(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act, the purport that “A” shall succeed to the status of “A” as a rental business operator of the sales contract with “A” shall be specified in the sales contract with “A”.

(d) Establishment, etc. of a right to collateral security for the three-dimensional apartments;

On November 26, 2003, the Defendant Korea Land Trust completed the registration of initial ownership of the third apartment in its own name on the ground of Pyeongtaek Ho and the trust deed, and on the same day, the registration of initial ownership of the apartment in its own name was completed on the same day as the maximum amount of claims 46,062,900,000, and the registration of initial establishment of a neighboring apartment as the debtor's land trust as the debtor's land trust on the same day. On January 29, 2004, the Defendant Korea Land Trust completed the registration of initial apartment as the trust property's name on the ground of the reversion of the trust property, and completed the registration of initial establishment of a collateral by changing the debtor to the ordinary Chang-top on the same day.

E. Conclusion of a trust agreement between the two parties, namely, Pyeongtaek-si on the third apartment and the defendant Korea Land Trust

(1) On February 6, 2004, in relation to the Defendant Korea Land Trust, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of the Class B real estate management trust agreement on the fourth apartment of the same month. On December 31 of the same year, the Defendant Korea Land Trust completed the registration of cancellation and the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the attribution of trust property on the 30th of the same month from the Defendant Korea Land Trust.

(2) After that, on February 4, 2005, Pyeongtaek Chang-ro completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of a type B real estate management trust agreement (hereinafter “instant trust agreement”) including the following contents, by designating the beneficiary as the truster with respect to the third apartment of Pyeongtaek Chang-ro as a flat-ro case to the Defendant Korea Land Trust.

(3) In addition, on February 25, 2002, Pyeongtaek Chang-gu implemented the procedure for change of name on the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay based on the instant trust contract with respect to the land size of 115 block 1-1 unit 38,214 square meters in the Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the site of the 3rd apartment, to the Defendant Korea Land Trust.

Article 1 (Purpose of Trust)

The purpose of this Agreement is to manage and preserve only the ownership of real estate in trust.

Article 2 (Beneficiarys)

(1) The beneficiaries under this contract shall be determined in the same manner as a separate prize.

Article 4 (Trust Period)

The period of trust in this contract shall be from the date of conclusion of this trust contract to the date of completion of the conversion for sale in lots: Provided, That before the termination of the trust, the period may be extended by consultation between the "A", "B" and the beneficiary.

Article 5 (Limits of Maintenance, Management and Liability)

(1) All acts of lease and maintenance and management of real estate in trust, other than ownership, shall be managed under the responsibility of "A" or beneficiaries.

(2) The terms "A" and "B" shall, in order to clarify the limitations on the management of real estate trusted, determine and operate the subject and scope of the responsibility for real estate management, such as the lottery.

(3) "A" shall be liable for any defect in real estate in a trust and any loss caused by such defect after the period of the trust or the termination of the trust.

Article 7 (Revenue of Trust Originals and Trusts)

(1) The trust principal shall be the trust real estate, the lease deposit, the property acquired by subrogation of the trust real estate in custody of the company, and other equivalent ones.

(2) Profits of trust shall be the rent generated from the trusted real estate and others corresponding thereto.

Article 8 (Certificate of Rights to Benefit)

2. The right to benefit under this contract may not be transferred or established a pledge without the prior consent of “B” (Defendant Korea Land Trust).

Article 15 (Termination of Trust and Delivery of Trust Property)

1. This contract shall be terminated by the expiration of the trust period, early termination, and termination of the contract, and the application for the transfer of ownership and the cancellation of the trust registration shall be made by “B (Defendant Korea Land Trust)”.

(2) Where a trust is terminated, the beneficiary shall pay or settle the following expenses, etc. without delay and submit the application documents for transfer of ownership and cancellation of trust registration to "B" (Defendant Korean Land Trust):

1. Expenses following the cancellation of trust registration;

2. Trust fees;

3. Expenses paid by proxy by the “B (Defendant Korea Land Trust)”;

4. Remuneration for termination, etc. of a contract following termination of the contract or termination of the contract and losses related thereto;

(3) "B (Defendant Korean Land Trust)" shall receive a return of the certificate of beneficial interest from the beneficiary, deliver the trust property to the beneficiary, prepare the final statement, and obtain the consent of the beneficiary: Provided, That the details of the calculation of the amount already notified to the beneficiary pursuant to Article 11 may be deemed to have been approved by the beneficiary and omitted in the final statement

* the subject and scope of the responsibility for real estate management

The subjects of the management of trust real estate and the scope of the limitation of their responsibility shall be determined as follows:

1. “A”;

(1) All management activities except management under subparagraphs 2 and 3.

(2) If an accident, such as the destruction or damage of real estate held in trust, occurs or is anticipated, duty to notify “B (Defendant Korea Land Trust)” without delay.

2. Beneficiaries;

(1) Preservation, such as facility management, cleaning, prevention of epidemics, guard, repair, purchase of fire insurance, etc.

(2) Lease management activities, such as lease contracts, rental deposit, collection of rent, etc.

(3) Operating and managing profits.

(4) Taxes and public charges imposed on trust property shall be paid.

(5) Where an accident, such as the loss, damage, etc. of real estate in trust, occurs or is anticipated, duty to notify “B (Defendant Korea Land Trust)” without delay.

(6) Other

3. “B (Defendant Korea Land Trust)”

(1) Ownership preservation and management on registers.

(f) Declaration of bankruptcy;

On December 26, 2006, Pyeongtaek Chang-si was declared bankrupt on April 25, 2008 by the Seoul Central District Court 2007Hahap68, and on the same day, the defendant trustee in bankruptcy was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy.

(g) Disposition, etc. of approval for conversion into parcelling-out in lots for the third apartment;

(1) The council of lessees’ representatives of the third apartment units filed an application for approval of conversion into lots for the third apartment units on June 24, 2008 to the head of Ulsan-si, the council of lessees’ representatives of the third apartment units. On July 4, 2008, the head of Ulsan-do, the exclusive area of which is 28.01 square meters (71.5457 square meters) for 119 households, the exclusive area of which is 28.01 square meters per household, 105,25,61 won per household, and the exclusive area of which is 32.26 square meters (84.984 square meters) for 708 households, the exclusive area of which is 32.26 square meters per household (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(2) The Defendant trustee filed a lawsuit against the North Korean head of Ulsan District Court No. 2008Guhap2198 against the Ulsan District Court, but the above court dismissed the Defendant trustee’s claim on February 18, 2009 on the ground that “The Kim Chang-si case, a rental business operator, was settled in bankruptcy on December 6, 2006, and on June 2008, the council of lessees’ representatives applied for the conversion of the above apartment around one year and more than one year since the council of lessees’ representatives applied for the conversion of the above apartment on June 2008. Accordingly, the lessee who resides in Pyeongtaek Chang-gu 3 apartment, has the right to preferential conversion, and the Defendant trustee has the duty to approve the above application within 30 days from the date of receipt of the above application for conversion of the conversion of the sale of the apartment, and the disposition of this case is legitimate, but the bankruptcy trustee dismissed the Defendant’s claim on the ground that the appeal was dismissed on the same day as the above appeal became final and conclusive pursuant to the judgment on March 31, 2009.

H. Contract to establish a pledge right with the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s pledgee”) except for the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s land rearrangement association in the Jindo and Scenic Village District (hereinafter “Defendant’s Intervenor’s land rearrangement association”).

(1) On September 15, 2005, the defendant assistant intervenor, Solomon Mutual Savings Bank, Solomon Mutual Savings Bank, and Shinman Mutual Savings Bank, Inc. concluded a contract with the beneficiary of the instant trust agreement as the secured claim on the land trust certificate on the original right, profit-making right, and all other profit-making under the instant trust agreement held against the defendant land trust, and the secured limit is at least 1.4 billion won, and the secured limit is at least 1.4 billion won and 8.6 billion won, with the consent of the defendant land trust.

(2) On March 28, 2006, Samsan Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (1) entered into a contract with the beneficiary of the instant trust agreement as a security of the trust right certificate against the Defendant Korea Land Trust, the collateral limit is three billion won, and the consent of the Defendant Korea Land Trust was obtained.

(3) On June 30, 2006 and August 28, 2006, the defendant assistant intervenor corporation entered into a contract with the beneficiary of the trust agreement of this case as a collateral for the trust interest certificate against the defendant's land trust, the collateral limit of five billion won, and the collateral limit of fifteen billion won, and the defendant's land trust was approved.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Claim against the defendant trustee in bankruptcy

The Plaintiffs are entitled to preferential conversion for sale in lots under Article 21(2) of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 9541 of March 25, 2009; hereinafter “former Rental Housing Act” without any special indication means the above Act, and it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 21(1) of the former Rental Housing Act (hereinafter “Rental Housing Act”) and thus, they are entitled to preferential conversion for sale in lots. Even if it is not so, inasmuch as the ordinary land construction, which is the rental business operator holding the right to lease, is insolvent, the Plaintiffs are entitled to preferential conversion for sale in lots pursuant to Article 2

Pursuant to Article 21(4) of the Rental Housing Act, the council of lessees' representatives of Pyeongtaek-si 3 apartments filed an application for approval of conversion for sale in lots with the head of Ulsan-si, Pursuant to Article 21(5) of the Rental Housing Act, the council of lessees' representatives of Ulsan-si 3 apartments filed an application for approval of conversion for sale in lots with the head of Ulsan-do, and on July 4, 2008, the head of Ulsan-si 27 apartments, including the plaintiffs, from among the third apartments in Pyeongtaek-si 3 apartments, approved conversion for sale in lots with the 827 households, including the plaintiffs, from among the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not comply with conversion for sale in lots for six months or longer after the approval of conversion for sale in lots, and the plaintiffs filed a request for sale of each of the rental housing in this case by serving a written application for alteration of the purport of the request and the cause of the request on January 21, 2

Therefore, the defendant bankruptcy trustee, who is the party to the lawsuit of Pyeongtaek Chang-gu, is obligated to implement each procedure for the transfer of ownership due to sale on January 30, 2009, the delivery date of the application for change of claim and cause of claim of each of the rental housing of this case, to the plaintiffs, and each of the procedures for the change of purchaser's name on each of the register of land secured by the development recompense for development outlay for sale on January 30, 209, which was the date of delivery of the application for change of claim and cause of each of the rental housing of this case.

Furthermore, with respect to the purchase price to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant trustee in bankruptcy, the amount equivalent to the lease deposit paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant trustee in bankruptcy shall be offset or deducted from the purchase price of each of the instant rental houses. In addition, with respect to the establishment registration of a national bank bank established on each of the instant rental houses, the plaintiffs have the right to refuse to pay the purchase price pursuant to Article 588 of the Civil Act. The amount calculated by dividing the maximum debt amount by the ratio of the above maximum debt amount to the households in accordance with the ordinary and equal ratio exceeds the amount obtained by deducting each lease deposit paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant trustee in bankruptcy from the pre-sale registration of each of the instant rental houses

(2) Claim against Defendant Korea Land Trust

As seen earlier, the instant trust agreement shall be terminated by the expiration of the trust period, and since the trust period under the instant trust agreement is until the completion of the sale for sale in lots, the instant trust agreement was concluded by the Plaintiffs on January 30, 2009 when the Plaintiffs filed a claim with the Defendant bankruptcy trustee for the sale of each of the instant rental housing and housing site shares.

Therefore, in the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant bankruptcy trustee, the defendant Korea Land Trust is obligated to perform each of the procedures for cancellation of each trust registration and transfer of ownership on the ground of termination of the trust as of January 30, 2009 with respect to each of the housing units of this case, and each of the housing units of this case on January 30, 2009 with respect to each of the housing units of this case as of January 30, 2009.

B. The Defendants and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s assertion (hereinafter the Defendants and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor together referred to as “the Defendants, etc.”)

(1) As to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to preferential conversion for sale in lots under the Rental Housing Act

㈎ 무주택자가 아닌 임차인은 우선 분양전환을 받을 자격이 없는데, 원고들 중에는 무주택자가 아닌 임차인들이 다수 있다.

㈏ 임대사업자는 임대주택법 제21조 제2항 의 규정에 따라 유주택자인 임차인에 대하여는 분양전환가격에 따라 매도할 것인지 여부를 선택할 수 있고, 울산 북구청장이 이 사건 처분을 하였다고 하더라도 이는 우선 분양받을 권한을 창설하는 효력이 있는 것이 아니므로, 무주택자가 아닌 원고들이 이 사건 처분에 따라 이 사건 각 임대주택에 관한 소유권이전등기청구를 하였다고 하여 피고 파산관재인이 반드시 이에 응하여야 할 의무가 있는 것은 아니다.

(2) As to whether the administrative agency’s approval disposition on the application for approval for conversion for sale in lots is valid

㈎ 울산 북구청장은 이 사건 각 임대주택의 분양전환가격을 산정함에 있어서 임대주택법 제21조 제9항 및 같은 법 시행령 제23조 제7항 , 제13조 제5항 에 따라 전용면적 85㎡ 이하인 이 사건 각 임대주택에 관하여 임대주택법 시행규칙 [별표 1]을 적용하여 분양전환가격을 산정하였는데, 위 ‘전용면적 85㎡’ 부분은 2005. 12. 13. 대통령령 제19178호로 개정된 것으로, 위 시행령 부칙 제2항 주2) 에 따르면 ‘전용면적 85㎡ 부분이 포함된 개정규정은 이 영 시행 후 최초로 입주자를 모집하는 임대주택부터 적용한다’고 되어 있으므로, 입주자의 모집이 2002년경 이루어진 이 사건 분양전환에 대하여는 위와 같이 개정되기 전의 구 임대주택법 시행령이 적용되어야 하는바, 구 임대주택법 시행령(2004. 3. 17. 대통령령 제18312호로 개정된 것) 제9조 제5항 주3) 은 전용면적 60㎡ 이하인 경우에만 임대주택법 시행규칙 [별표 1]에 의하여 분양전환가격을 산정하도록 규정하고 있다. 그런데 이 사건 각 임대주택의 전용면적은 모두 60㎡를 초과하므로 임대주택법 시행규칙 [별표 1]이 적용되지 않음에도 불구하고, 울산 북구청장은 이 사건 처분 당시 시행 중이던 임대주택법 시행규칙 [별표 1]을 적용하여 감정평가를 거치지 않은 채 이 사건 각 임대주택의 분양전환가격을 산정하였다.

㈏ 울산 북구청장은 이 사건 각 임대주택의 분양전환가격을 산정함에 있어 입주자모집공고 당시의 건축비가 아니라 분양전환 당시의 건축비를 기준으로 감가상각비를 계산하고, 건축비에 덕트설비의 설치비용, 건설근로자 퇴직공제부금, 보일러 공동 연도의 설치비, 음식물류 폐기물 공동처리시설의 설치비, 하도급대금 지급보증 수수료 등 가산항목을 산정하지 않았고, 택지비에 제세공과금 및 등기수수료, 간선시설의 설치비용, 지상물 철거비용 등을 더하지 않았다.

㈐ 나아가 울산 북구청장은 원고들 중 주택을 소유하고 있는 사람들에 대하여도 임대주택의 분양전환을 승인하는 이 사건 처분을 하였으므로, 결국 이 사건 처분에는 중대·명백한 하자가 존재하여 무효이다.

(3) As to whether the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant bankruptcy trustee are possible

㈎ 원고들의 분양전환신청에 따른 이 사건 각 임대주택에 관한 소유권이전등기청구권은 그 원인이 이 사건 각 임대차계약에 터잡은 것으로써 평창토건의 파산선고 전의 원인으로 생긴 재산상의 청구권이므로 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘통합도산법’이라 한다)상 파산채권이다. 따라서 원고들은 통합도산법에 정해진 채권배당에 관한 권리 규정에 따라 채권을 행사하여야 하고, 파산채권의 직접 이행을 구할 수는 없다.

㈏ 원고들의 매도청구가 가능하다고 하더라도 통합도산법 제335조 에 따라 원고들과 평창토건 사이의 매매계약은 파산선고 당시 이행을 완료하지 않은 미이행쌍무계약으로 피고 파산관재인이 이를 해제할 수 있다.

㈐ 원고들의 임대차보증금 반환채권은 원고들의 임료지급이나 연체 여부에 따라, 혹은 임대차보증금 반환채권에 대한 원고들 채권자의 강제집행 여부에 따라 지급이 금지되거나 지속적으로 변동될 여지가 있을 뿐만 아니라, 원고들이 이 사건 각 임대아파트를 명도할 때 비로소 그 반환금 액수이 확정되는 것이기 때문에 이를 위 분양전환가격에서 정액으로 공제할 수 없고, 원고들이 주장하는 민법 제588조 에 의한 항변권은 피고 파산관재인의 권리행사를 연기시키는 소극적 항변권에 불과하여 이 사건과 같이 원고들이 적극적으로 소유권이전등기를 청구하는 경우에는 원용할 수 없으므로, 피고 파산관재인은 원고들로부터 이 사건 각 임대아파트의 분양전환가격(매매대금) 전액을 지급받음과 동시에 원고들에게 이 사건 각 임대주택에 관한 소유권이전등기절차 및 이 사건 각 임대주택의 대지지분에 관한 체비지매매대장상 매수인명의변경절차를 각 이행할 의무가 있을 뿐이다.

(4) As to whether the claim against the Defendant Korea Land Trust is possible

㈎ 원고들이 피고 파산관재인에게 이 사건 각 임대주택에 관한 매도청구권을 행사한 것만으로 평창토건과 피고 한국토지신탁 사이의 이 사건 신탁계약이 종료된 것으로 볼 수 없다.

㈏ 이 사건 신탁계약에 따라 평창토건이 보유한 수익권에 대한 이해관계인인 피고보조참가인 질권자들이 있는 한, 피고 한국토지신탁은 그들의 동의 없이는 피고 파산관재인에게 이 사건 각 임대주택 및 그 대지지분에 관한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행할 수 없다.

㈐ 이 사건 신탁계약상 평창토건의 신탁수익권증서반환의무와 피고 한국토지신탁의 소유권이전등기의무는 동시이행 관계에 있다 할 것인데, 평창토건이 피고 보조참가인들에게 신탁수익권증서에 관하여 근질권을 설정하여 피고 파산관재인의 피고 한국토지신탁에 대한 신탁수익권증서 반환의무가 이행불능상태에 빠졌으므로, 피고 한국토지신탁도 피고 파산관재인에게 소유권이전등기를 해 줄 의무가 없다.

C. Defendant Intervenor’s assertion

The supplementary intervenor association entered into a contract for construction works on the land of 1,441,300 square meters in Ulsan-gu, Chungcheongnam-dong, Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, and the land of 1,441,300 square meters and entered into a land readjustment project; the title of the apartment site was changed in the name of the land recompense for development outlay in the name of payment for the construction work; and Pyeongtaek-dong again entrusted the preservation and management of the ownership on the land of the land to the defendant Korea Land Trust. After that, the supplementary intervenor association failed to perform the contracted construction works due to the failure to pay for Pyeongtaek-dong, Ulsan-dong, and the land of 1,441,300 square meters; on September 23, 2009, the supplementary intervenor association notified the defendant's bankruptcy trustee of the performance of the obligation to pay for the debt or the termination of the contract; on September 23, 2009, the defendant's supplementary apartment building site under the name of 3rd Chang-dong, which the plaintiff's supplementary apartment site was cancelled.

3. Determination

A. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to preferential conversion for sale in lots under the Rental Housing Act

If the language and text of a law consists of relatively clear concepts, in principle, another interpretation method is no longer necessary or limited, and even if it is intended to interpret the term used in a certain provision differently from the ordinary meaning of the text and text in light of the legislative intent and purpose of the law, it cannot disregard the systematic relationship between other provisions in the law and other laws or harmony with the entire legal system, so there is a certain limit (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da81035, Apr. 23, 2009, etc.).

Article 21(2) of the Rental Housing Act provides that "The lessee who resides in the relevant rental house at the time of conversion for sale shall be entitled to conversion for sale in lots, regardless of paragraph (1), in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as default of the rental business operator, bankruptcy, and other cases, shall be entitled to conversion for sale in lots." Furthermore, through the phrase of "paragraph (1)," it clearly states that the exceptions to Paragraph (2) of the same Article, which provide for preferential conversion for sale in lots to homelesss after the expiration of the mandatory rental period, are clearly prescribed. Article 21(2) of the Rental Housing Act provides that "If it is difficult for the lessee to return the deposit due to the default, bankruptcy, etc. of the rental business operator, the lessee shall be entitled to conversion for sale in lots in lots against the above tenant's right to preferential conversion for sale in lots." Article 21(2) of the same Act provides that the lessee shall be subject to conversion for sale in lots (Article 15(1)5) of the Rental Housing Act, which is no first lessee, to be construed as 16).

In addition, even though Article 21(2) of the Rental Housing Act provides that in the event of default and bankruptcy, etc., a lessee who resides in the relevant rental house at the time of conversion for sale in lots may file an application for approval for conversion for sale in lots with the consent of at least 2/3 of the total number of lessees if a rental business operator fails to file an application for approval for conversion for sale in lots for at least one year after default and bankruptcy, a lessee or a council of lessees' representatives may file an application for approval for conversion in lots with the consent of at least 2/3 of the total number of lessees. Article 21(8) of the same Act provides that a lessee may file a claim for sale in lots based on the conversion for sale in lots if a rental business operator fails to comply with the conversion for sale in lots for at least six months after a lessee obtained approval for conversion in lots, a lessee who has obtained approval for

Therefore, the plaintiffs who were residing in rental housing at the time of applying for approval for conversion for sale in lots are in the position to preferentially purchase each of the instant rental housing in accordance with Article 21(1), (2), (5), and (8) of the Rental Housing Act.

B. Whether the instant disposition is valid

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiffs asked the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on June 12, 2008 whether the conversion price can be calculated by deducting depreciation costs during the lease period of the relevant house under the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 8966 of Mar. 21, 2008), Article 21 (10) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20849 of Jun. 20, 2008), Article 23 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20849 of Jun. 20, 2008), [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 19 of Jun. 20, 2008), and the head of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on June 26, 2008.

Normal price = Calculation price [Standard construction cost + guarantee fee] at the time of conversion into sale + + Interest on housing site cost at the time of announcement of invitation of residents + Interest on housing site cost [Housing site cost 】 interest rate (4.1%) 】 Depreciation cost (Standard construction cost ± X number of days in 40 years/365)]

(2) The former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act provides that an administrative disposition which was rendered by the head of the relevant administrative agency cannot be deemed null and void because the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act explicitly provides that an administrative disposition which was rendered by the head of the relevant administrative agency cannot be deemed null and void because the former Enforcement Rule of the Act explicitly provides that an administrative disposition which was rendered by the head of the relevant administrative agency cannot be deemed null and void, based on the following circumstances, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleading. (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 200Du350, Jul. 29, 2005). Since the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act provides that an administrative disposition which was rendered by the head of the relevant administrative agency cannot be deemed null and void by applying the provisions of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du13076, Dec. 9, 2004).

C. Whether the plaintiffs' right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant rental housing constitutes bankruptcy claims, and whether the sales contract between the plaintiffs and Pyeongtaek Chang-si constitutes an executory bilateral contract, and whether the defendant's trustee in bankruptcy can rescind the contract.

(1) First of all, we examine whether the plaintiffs' right to claim for transfer registration of ownership of each of the instant rental housing belongs to bankruptcy claims, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned admitted evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., the defendant bankruptcy trustee present at the first meeting of creditors on June 26, 2008 on the bankruptcy proceedings, and reported each of the instant rental housing to be liquidated through conversion into lots pursuant to the Rental Housing Act. ② The defendant introduced an application for approval for conversion into lots to resolve the problem of delayed conversion into lots due to the conflict of interests between the rental business operator and lessee, and even if the mandatory period of lease of the rental housing has expired or the rental business operator has defaulted or goes bankrupt, the tenant can directly file an application for conversion into lots to resolve the housing problems of the lessee arising from the delay of sale into lots. 200 days after the approval for conversion into lots was granted, and the reason for the plaintiff's right to claim sale of the rental housing was wholly amended by Act No. 2013, Mar. 21, 2008.

(2) Next, as to whether the Defendant’s bankruptcy trustee can rescind the sales contract of each of the instant rental housing between the Plaintiffs and Pyeongtaek Chang-to-si as an executory contract, and as to this point, Article 355(1) of the Consolidateddo Act provides that “if both the debtor and the other party with respect to the bilateral contract have not yet completed the performance at the time bankruptcy is declared bankrupt, the bankruptcy trustee may rescind or terminate the contract, or claim for the other party’s performance.” However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs’ obligation to pay the purchase price or to transfer the ownership of Pyeongtaek Chang-to-si was caused after the declaration of bankruptcy, and thus, the obligation to pay the purchase price or transfer registration of the right to own land does not fall under the obligation which has not been completed at the time of the declaration of bankruptcy. Thus, the Defendant’s bankruptcy trustee cannot rescind the sales contract of each of

(3) Furthermore, Article 21(5) and (8) of the Rental Housing Act, the main purpose of which is the protection of lessee, if the defendant's bankruptcy trustee can cancel it because the plaintiffs' right to claim for the registration of transfer of ownership of each of the instant rental houses falls under bankruptcy claims, or because the contract between the plaintiffs and the public building constitutes an executory bilateral contract, is contrary to the legislative purpose of adopting it. Thus, in the event that the lease business operator goes bankrupt, the right to apply for the registration of conversion of the rental housing and the right to claim for sale thereof, which are recognized as the lessee pursuant to the provisions of the Rental Housing Act, shall be deemed the right to exercise the right according to a separate procedure under the Rental Housing Act, not the bankruptcy procedure under the Act on the Establishment and Forestry of Small and Medium Enterprises, and the Rental Housing Act shall be applied in preference to the special law under the Act on

(d) Whether the trust contract between Pyeongtaek-do and the defendant Korea Land Trust has been terminated over the trust period.

It is reasonable to view that the trust contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant bankruptcy trustee was terminated on January 30, 2009, which is the date when the purpose of the trust is achieved, and the trust contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant's trustee in bankruptcy was terminated on January 30, 2009, when the purpose of the trust contract is to preserve and manage the ownership of the rental housing until the completion of conversion for sale in lots.

E. Whether the Plaintiffs can seek the registration of transfer of ownership by cancelling the instant trust agreement without the consent of the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor’s pledgee

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence admitted earlier, ① the agreement that, upon the conclusion of the instant trust agreement with the Defendant Korea Land Trust, in concluding the instant trust agreement, the trust proceeds derived from the trust property, such as the trust property, the trust money, the sale price, the lease deposit and the lease fee, etc., from the trust property, such as the trust-related debts, the trust-related expenses, and the trust fees, shall be deemed as the trust benefits, and ② the agreement that, upon the establishment of the pledge right on the trust benefits with the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor, the effect of the agreement on the original land trust business, the beneficiary rights, and all other profits may be recognized.

However, Article 12-3 of the former Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8966, Mar. 21, 2008) which was enforced at the time of establishing a pledge on the right to benefit from trust between Pyeongtaek Ho and the Defendant’s assistant subcontractors, prohibits rental business operators from establishing a security right such as mortgage and provisional registration security (No. 1) and establishing a right to lease on a deposit basis or a registered right to lease on a deposit basis (No. 2) with respect to rental housing constructed through a housing construction project implemented with approval of a business plan prior to sale in lots (Article 12-3).

According to the contents of the Rental Housing Act and the above facts, since the former Rental Housing Act prohibits a rental business operator from establishing a security right, etc. on a rental house prior to the conversion into lots, and does not prohibit a rental business operator to trust a rental house, the rental business operator may establish a pledge right on the right to benefit from the trust after the rental business operator entrusted a rental house (On the other hand, there is no evidence that it concluded a trust contract in order to avoid the restriction on the establishment of a mortgage, etc., or that it concluded a trust contract for the purpose of violating good morals and other social order, and it is not a person who is not entitled to acquire the property right on the rental house of this case under the laws and regulations, so the trust contract of this case is valid).

(2) However, Article 12-3 of the former Rental Housing Act does not apply to cases where a rental business operator becomes the State, local government, the Korea National Housing Corporation or a local government-invested public corporation, or other cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree (where a rental business operator entrusts the relevant rental housing to a trust company established with authorization under Article 3 of the Trust Business Act or to the Korea Housing Guarantee Company established under Article 76 of the Housing Act) and where a limited real right has been established or seized, seized, provisionally disposed of, etc., on the relevant rental housing after the date of registration of initial ownership (Paragraph 2).

Therefore, in cases where a rental business operator has additionally registered that a limited real right is not established, seized, provisionally seized, or provisionally disposed of, a rental house before the conversion of ownership into a rental house is made, the seizure, etc. becomes null and void, and a rental house constructed by a rental business operator as a housing construction business is subject to prohibition of seizure after a business plan is approved. Since a rental business operator entrusted a rental house to a trust company and a rental business operator transfers a rental house to a truster, who is a truster, but the truster acquires a right to benefit, but the trustee loses the ownership of the trust property, the truster’s creditor cannot seize or provisionally seize the trust property, etc. as such, because it is separated from the truster’s property up to time by the creation of the trust. Furthermore, even if the trust property is in the name of the trustee in relation to the trustee, it is distinguishable from the trustee’s proprietary property, but in principle, the general creditor of the trustee cannot perform compulsory execution as a matter of principle.

Therefore, although the right to benefit from trust is not the right directly aiming at trust property, it is reasonable to interpret that the trust contract of this case is not effective to the extent that it restricts the right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership of the rental housing and the site of the land of this case against the defendant Korean Land Trust, the trustee, without the consent of the neighboring pledgee, as to the right to benefit from trust between Pyeongtaek Ho and the defendant's assistant subcontractor as to the right to benefit from trust, which is the original trust (leased apartment and site).

Therefore, even if the defendant's assistant intervenor's transfer of ownership of rental housing and the procedure for the change of the purchaser's name on the ledger of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, the plaintiffs can file a claim for the transfer of ownership of rental housing and obtain the change of the purchaser's name on the ledger of land allotted by the defendant's assistant intervenor on behalf of the truster, or obtain the transfer of the ownership of rental housing from the

F. Whether Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s association can seek implementation of the procedure for title change on the registry of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 4, and the purport of the argument, (1) on January 28, 1999, the defendant supplementary intervenor association owned the land development recompense land of 100,803,926,000 square meters in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-dong, Seoul-dong, and the construction cost of the land readjustment project of 100,803,926,000 square meters, and the construction period from January 29, 199 to August 12, 2003; (2) around November 13, 1999, the defendant supplementary intervenor association rejected the construction period of 207,000 square meters in the name of 20,000 square meters in the name of 316,530 square meters in the land rearrangement project; and (3) around November 28, 2017, the defendant supplementary intervenor association changed the construction cost of the land of 206,0000 square meters in the name of 25.

(2) If both the debtor and the other party fail to complete the performance of a bilateral contract at the time that the bankruptcy is declared, the other party may demand the bankruptcy trustee to confirm whether the contract is rescinded, terminated, or performed within a reasonable period fixed, and if the bankruptcy trustee fails to confirm clearly within such period, the other party shall be deemed to cancel or terminate the contract (Article 335(2) of the Integrated Bankruptcy Act). In addition, if the contract is rescinded or terminated pursuant to the provisions of Article 335 of the Integrated Bankruptcy Act, the other party may exercise his/her right as a bankruptcy creditor with respect to damages (Article 337(1)). If the consideration received by the debtor exists in the bankruptcy estate, the other party shall claim the return of the consideration, and if not, the other party shall exercise his/her right as a estate creditor with respect to the value thereof (Article 337(2)). In addition, in cases where the other party to the bankrupt does not request the return of the bankrupt debtor, the right to use the site shall be deemed to have been recovered from the other party.

(3) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the Defendant’s bankruptcy trustee’s demand for confirmation as to whether the construction contract was implemented or terminated from the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor association and not reply thereto, and thus, the contract for construction work between the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor association was rescinded around the lower end of September 2009. However, it was impossible for the Defendant’s bankruptcy trustee to return the land for the Defendant’s supplementary apartment site to the Defendant’s Intervenor association as its original property, on January 30, 2009 between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor, on the ground that the sales contract was established for the Pyeongtaek Chang Apartment apartment, an aggregate building as of January 30, 2009, and that it cannot be disposed of separately from the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor’s right to use the land for the 3rd apartment site corresponding to the consideration received from the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor association as the construction cost.

Therefore, since the ownership of the third apartment site is not existing in the bankruptcy estate, the defendant auxiliary intervenor's association cannot seek against the defendant bankruptcy trustee the implementation of the change of name in the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay regarding the third apartment site, and only can it exercise the right as a foundation creditor regarding the value thereof.

Thus, the argument of the defendant assistant intervenor association as to this part is without merit.

G. Whether the plaintiffs can demand the performance of the condition without any requirement

(1) As to the claim for deduction of lease deposit or set-off

㈎ 원고들은 평창토건에게 별지 3.의 ‘보증금’ 란 기재 각 금액을 이미 지급하였으므로 이 사건 각 임대주택의 분양전환가격에서 위 보증금을 공제한 나머지 금액만을 이 사건 각 임대주택의 매매대금으로 지급하면 된다고 주장하는바, 먼저 원고들의 위 주장을 임대차보증금의 매매대금에 대한 충당 내지는 공제에 관한 주장으로 보고 판단한다.

On the other hand, the amount indicated in the column of the “Deposit” column of Attached Form 3, which the plaintiffs paid to Pyeongtaek-si, was paid as the lease deposit for each of the instant rental houses, and there is no evidence to deem that advance payment was made as part of the purchase price in preparation for the case where each of the instant rental houses is converted for sale in the future, and there is no evidence to conclude that the lease deposit paid by the plaintiffs in the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Rental Housing Act, was appropriated automatically to the purchase price, or there is no evidence to find any ground to recognize the deduction on the amount of lease deposit paid by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the lease deposit that the plaintiffs paid to Pyeongtaek-si Construction cannot be appropriated

㈏ 다음으로, 원고들의 위 주장을 ‘원고들이 평창토건에게 지급한 임대차보증금을 이 사건 각 임대주택에 대한 매매대금과 대등액에서 상계한다’는 주장으로 보고 판단한다.

In a real estate lease, the deposit that the lessee pays to the lessor is to secure all the obligations of the lessee arising from the lease relationship until the lease relationship terminates and the lessee returns the leased object. If the lessee fails to pay the deposit in full unless the lessee does so, or bears the obligation to compensate for damages arising from the failure to pay the lease deposit or from the use of the leased object until the termination of the lease contract, or bears the obligation to return unjust enrichment by the time when the lessee returns the leased object, the lessor shall only return the remainder after deducting the deposit from the deposit. Thus, in a case where the lease relationship terminates, the lessor’s obligation to return the deposit reaches the due date only for the remainder after deducting all obligations of the lessee, such as overdue rent arising from the time the leased object is returned (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 7Da1241, 1242, Sept. 28, 197; Supreme Court Decision 87Da68, Jun. 9, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 87Da798, Jun. 2398, 198).

In light of the above legal principles, first of all, even if the sales contract for each of the instant rental housing was concluded by the plaintiffs and the defendant trustee in bankruptcy by exercising the plaintiffs' right to demand sale, such circumstance alone is insufficient to deem that each of the instant rental housing is terminated as a matter of course. Therefore, the plaintiffs still possess each of the instant rental housing based on the right of lease until the purchase price of each of the instant rental housing is paid. Therefore, the plaintiffs' right to claim the refund of the lease deposit against the plaintiffs, which is an automatic claim for offset, is not satisfied as the fulfillment period

Even if each of the instant lease agreements between the Plaintiffs and Pyeongtaek-gu was terminated, the repayment claim of the lease deposit reaches the due date only when the remainder remains after deducting all the obligations of the lessee, such as overdue rent, management fee, unjust enrichment, and damages, arising from the time when the leased object is delivered to the lessor after the termination of the lease. Thus, as long as the Plaintiffs possessed each of the instant rental housing without paying the purchase price, the Plaintiffs’ right to claim the refund of the lease deposit, which is an automatic claim for offset, does not meet the set-off requirement as the Plaintiffs did not yet reach the due date.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion about the deduction or set-off of the lease deposit repayment claim is without merit.

(2) As to the claim for the deduction of the secured debt of the right to collateral security established in Pyeongtaek 3 apartment

Unless otherwise agreed in a real estate sales contract, the purchaser may refuse to pay an amount equivalent to the limit on security on the registration until the cancellation of the mortgage (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1029, Sept. 27, 198, etc.). However, the purchaser's right to refuse to pay the purchase price does not deny the seller's right to claim the payment of the purchase price, but only has the nature of a defense right to postpone the seller's exercise of rights. Thus, the purchaser's right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the conclusion of a sales contract based on the approval for conversion of sale in lots from the Defendant bankruptcy trustee in this case cannot seek the remaining purchase price without paying the purchase price.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

H. Defenses of the defendants, etc. to simultaneous performance

(1) Regarding the claim against the defendant bankruptcy trustee, the plaintiffs' claim that the plaintiffs' obligation to pay the purchase price for each of the instant rental housing and the obligation to transfer the ownership of the defendant bankruptcy trustee are concurrently performed.

㈎ 부동산매매계약에서 발생하는 매도인의 소유권이전등기의무와 매수인의 매매잔대금지급의무는 동시이행관계에 있고( 대법원 2006. 2. 23. 선고 2005다53187 판결 , 1992. 2. 14. 선고 91다12349 판결 등 참조), 한편 부동산매매계약을 한 매수인이 매도인을 상대로 단순히 소유권이전등기 청구만을 하고 매도인은 이에 대하여 대금지급과의 동시이행 항변을 제기한 경우에 있어서, 원고의 청구중에 대금지급과의 상환으로 소유권이전등기를 받겠다는 취지가 포함되었다고 보여지는 경우에는 법원이 피고에게 대금 수령과 상환으로 소유권이전등기절차를 이행할 것을 명할 수 있다( 대법원 1980. 2. 26. 선고 80다56 판결 참조).

㈏ 위 법리에 비추어 이 사건에 관하여 살피건대, 원고들은 자신들이 평창토건에게 지급한 이 사건 각 임대주택에 대한 임대차보증금과 평창 3차아파트에 설정된 근저당권의 피담보채무를 공제하면 원고들이 피고 파산관재인에게 지급하여야 할 매매대금은 더 이상 존재하지 아니함을 전제로 이 사건 각 임대주택에 대한 소유권이전등기를 구하고 있으므로, 피고 파산관재인에 대하여 이 사건 각 임대주택에 대한 무조건의 소유권이전등기를 구하는 원고들의 이 사건 청구는 이유 없으나, 한편, 원고들의 이 사건 청구 중에는 이 사건 각 임대주택에 관한 매매대금의 지급과 상환으로 소유권이전등기를 받겠다는 취지가 포함되어 있다고 볼 것이므로, 결국 피고 파산관재인은 원고들로부터 이 사건 각 임대주택의 매매대금을 지급받음과 동시에 원고들에게 이 사건 각 임대주택에 대한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행할 의무가 있다 할 것이다.

Therefore, the simultaneous performance of the above part of the defendants, etc. is justified.

(2) As to the claim against Defendant Korea Land Trust, the argument that Defendant bankruptcy trustee’s obligation to return the instant beneficial interest certificate and the obligation to transfer the ownership of Defendant Korea Land Trust are simultaneously performed.

Upon the termination of the instant trust agreement, the Defendant Korea Land Trust provides that the beneficiary shall receive the certificate of beneficial interest from the beneficiary and deliver the trust property to the beneficiary. From the perspective of the fact that the case involves not only the truster's status under the instant trust agreement but also the beneficiary's status. However, as to whether the Defendant Trustee is obligated to return the certificate of beneficial interest to the Defendant Korea Land Trust and the Defendant Land Trust to the trustee in bankruptcy at the same time, it is examined whether the obligation to return the trust property to the Defendant trustee in bankruptcy is concurrently performed. (See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da22042 delivered on August 19, 2005.) However, in the case of the securities or instrument, the obligation to return and the instrument of beneficial interest under the instant trust agreement cannot be viewed as being transferred by endorsement and delivery or presentation of the certificate of beneficial interest to the beneficiary. However, considering the fact that the Defendant Trust cannot be deemed as having the duty to return the trust property at the same time as the trust property and the trust property's obligation to return the trust property at the same time, it cannot be deemed as the trust property's obligation to be deemed as 20.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion based on this premise is without merit to examine further.

I. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant trustee in bankruptcy is obligated to receive money in the column of “sale price for each unit” as stated in the separate sheet No. 4., which is the purchase price of each of the instant rental housing from the Plaintiffs; at the same time, to implement the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 3., as stated in the separate sheet No. 3., on January 30, 2009; to implement the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer for the sale of each unit of real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 3; to implement the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer for the sale of each unit of real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 115, 38, 214 square meters within Ulsan-dong, Seosan-gu; to implement the procedures for registration of ownership transfer for the sale of each unit of real estate in the separate sheet No. 40, Jan. 30, 209; to implement the procedures for registration of ownership transfer for the sale of each unit of real estate in the separate sheet No. 1, 30, 15,1,1,1,201,294, and 7.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant trustee in bankruptcy shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed without merit, and the claims against the defendant's land trust shall be accepted with merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by changing the judgment of the court of first instance as above.

Judges Kim Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)

1) On June 24, 2011, after the closing of argument in the trial of the party branch, the Samwon Savings Bank Co., Ltd. was declared bankrupt on June 24, 201. On the same day, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy, and the above trustee in bankruptcy filed a request to resume the lawsuit with the court on July 18, 201.

2) Addenda (2) The amended provisions of Article 9 (5) 1 and 2 shall apply to rental housing which first recruits occupants after this Decree enters into force. Article 9 (Mandatory Rental Period, etc. of Rental Housing) (5) Where public rental housing excluding the following housing is converted for sale in lots pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (2) 2 or 3, the standards for calculating the conversion price shall be prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation.

(5) The criteria for calculating the pre-sale conversion price pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (2) 2 or 3 shall be prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation where the publicly constructed rental house built by a rental business operator who is not the State, a local government, the Korea National Housing Corporation, or a local public corporation is converted for sale pursuant to paragraph (2) 2 or 3.

4) Article 15(2) of the former Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8966, Mar. 21, 2008) provides that Article 15(2) of the former Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 20849, Jun. 20, 2008) is corresponding to Article 21(2) of the Rental Housing Act. Article 13(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 20849, Jun. 20, 2008) provides that “Where it is difficult to refund rental deposit due to the default or bankruptcy of a rental business operator, where a lessee who resides in

(1) Where a rental business operator makes a conversion of constructed rental housing as prescribed by the Presidential Decree into parcelling-out after the lapse of the mandatory rental period, he shall make a preferential conversion into parcelling-out to the lessee who has no house as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

(1) In cases where a rental business operator sells a house built with a subsidy from the National Housing Fund under Article 60 of the Housing Act or a house built on a housing site created by a public project from among the housing constructed with a business plan approved under Article 16 of the Housing Act after the lapse of the obligatory period for lease, he/she shall make a conversion into parcelling-out with priority to the lessee falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

(7) Article 15(1) of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 7598 of Jul. 13, 2005) provides that "in cases where a rental business operator sells a constructed rental house as prescribed by the Presidential Decree after the expiration of the mandatory rental period, the rental business operator shall preferentially convert the rental house to the lessee who is a homeless household prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Article 3 of the same Act and Article 2 subparag. 8 of the former Rules on Housing Supply (amended by Act No. 7600 of Jul. 13, 2005), which applies to housing supply pursuant to Article 3 of the same Act and Article 38 of the former Housing Act (amended by Ordinance No. 17 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation of Jan. 15, 2008), "household owner" means the householder of a household composed of his spouse, lineal ascendant or descendant, or descendant under the resident registration card, and "non-household household owner" in subparagraph 9 of the same Article means the householder who does not own the house, and thus shall meet the requirements for conversion.

Note 8) See the reason why the proposal for the whole amendment of the Rental Housing Act was made by the Chairperson of the National Assembly on February 19, 2008.

9) Even if the contents of each of the instant lease agreements were stipulated, no special agreement allowing a fixed amount deduction of lease deposit from the pre-sale conversion price cannot be found.

Note 10) Total sum of the plaintiffs' housing site shares 25,647.1908 [=22,535.7500 [ = (47.07.15 x 500} + 3,111.4408 [=37.944 x 82]