2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,240,121,079 won with 6% interest per annum from December 30, 202 to the service date of a copy of the application for modification of the claim of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as follows, except for the first instance court's last 4 pages of the first instance court's decision, and the reasons for this court's explanation are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's decision. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420

2. Parts to be dried;

(2) The Defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s design service cost claim is expired at the time of the instant lawsuit, because the three-year extinctive prescription is applied to the Plaintiff’s design service cost claim

According to Article 48(3) of the Trust Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10924, Jul. 25, 201), the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on April 29 1, 2009, and subsequently appointed a new trustee on April 29, 200, the Defendant succeeded to the obligation of the Plaintiff for unpaid services within the limit of trust property within the limit of 7 years with respect to the design of the Plaintiff’s Crerererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererere rerererererererererererererererererere rererererererererererererererererererererererererere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere rere re rere rere rere rere rere re re re re re re re re re re rere rere re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re.

(3) Judgment on the plaintiff's second defense

A) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim on the service charges and the bankruptcy claim established by the final judgment of this case are identical to one another, not to the other separate claim, but to the same design service charges claims. However, the method of exercising the right is merely different from the lawsuit for the performance and the lawsuit for the confirmation of bankruptcy claims. As the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the trust on August 22, 2001, the extinctive prescription of the service charges claims of this case was interrupted at that time. Since the final judgment of this case was rendered on August 17, 2005 with regard to the claim for the confirmation of bankruptcy claims which were selectively added, the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 17, 2005, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim on the service charges of the trust was applied for ten (10) years thereafter, and the period of extinctive prescription has not yet expired.

However, the lawsuit of this case is filed against the defendant, who is the trustee under the trust contract of this case, and the reason for the lawsuit of this case is merely a new trustee under the trust contract of this case and the defendant succeeded to the service cost, which is a debt incurred in relation to the trust affairs, from the Corret Trust, which is the previous trustee, within the scope of trust property. Accordingly, the judgment of this case is based on the trust contract of this case and the trust law of this case. However, Article 11 of the Trust Act provides that "if the trust duties of the trustee are terminated due to bankruptcy of the trustee, the trustee shall keep the trust property and perform acts necessary for the transfer of the trust until the new trustee performs the trust affairs." However, the above provision cannot be deemed as having granted the trustee the right to manage and dispose of the trust property, including the right to perform the lawsuit against the trust property, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff cannot be deemed as having received the legal claim of this case from the court of appeal for the reason of this case's design of the bankruptcy claim of this case as the debtor of this case's trust property.

B) In addition, the Plaintiff also states that in the event that the trustee’s duties are terminated due to the bankruptcy of the trustee, the trustee in bankruptcy shall keep the trust property and engage in acts necessary for the transfer of the trust affairs until the new trustee performs the trust affairs. Therefore, the trustee in bankruptcy is capable of obtaining effective approval on the existence of the trust claims. On August 8, 2008, the trustee in bankruptcy of the Kocart Trust denies the Plaintiff’s claim for the service charges, while the trustee in bankruptcy denies the Plaintiff’s claim for the service charges within the scope of the amount under the final and conclusive judgment of this case and withdraws the previous objection, the trustee in bankruptcy of Kocart Trust claims that the trustee in bankruptcy

However, although the trustee in bankruptcy in Cret Trust concurrently serves as a custodian of the trust property and as a manager of the bankrupt estate, the trustee in bankruptcy shall be divided into custody of the trust property pursuant to the Trust Act and management of the bankrupt estate comprised of the trustee's proprietary property. Thus, the trustee in bankruptcy proceedings pursuant to the final judgment of this case where the trustee in bankruptcy claims for the design service costs as a bankruptcy claim against the bankrupt estate pursuant to the bankruptcy proceedings in accordance with the final judgment of this case cannot be deemed to have approved the service costs claim against the trust property

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is unfair in conclusion, it shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed

Judges highest (Presiding Judge) Lee Jae-ho Kim