손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is to be stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part of “the basic facts” in the judgment of the court of first instance is partially corrected and added as follows, and the part of “the improper execution of additional trust fee of KRW 56,385,000,000,” which the plaintiff appealed, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment under
In the fourth sentence of the first instance judgment, the fourth sentence “8 households” is deemed to be “831 households”; the fifth through sixth class “37 households” is deemed to be “44 households”; the fourth sentence part of the first instance judgment is to be “(=1,287 households - 831 households - 434 households; hereinafter collectively referred to as “the remaining households of this case”) each (i.e., the 6th sentence of the first instance judgment, in which the households subject to the conclusion of the security trust contract are 387 households; and (ii) the fourth sentence of the fourth sentence of the first instance judgment, in which the 387 households subject to the conclusion of the security trust contract are described as “44 households”; and (iii) the fourth sentence of the fourth sentence of the fourth sentence of the first instance judgment, “A evidence 12 and 21” is added.
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff asserts as to whether the instant trust agreement was terminated due to the Plaintiff’s payment of the construction cost, that even if the instant trust agreement had not been terminated on January 23, 2013 and has been automatically extended without expiration of the trust term, the instant trust agreement was terminated upon the Plaintiff’s full payment of the remaining construction cost to the construction company around May 21, 2013, under the circumstance that the remaining construction cost could not be paid with trust property after the lapse of the trust term.
In full view of the evidence evidence Nos. 17 through 19 and evidence Nos. 14, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works of KRW 161,94,539,850, around September 2009, in order to promote the instant project, the Plaintiff, an affiliated company of the Plaintiff, and the construction cost of KRW 161,94,539,850. The instant trust contract was concluded on September 24, 2009, and around that time, the contract was entered into by the Defendant’s succession to the contract for construction works that the Defendant would succeed to the contract for construction works, and accordingly, the payment for the completed portion for the said construction works is