건물명도
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A’s real estate listed in Annex A’s Schedule 1;
B. Defendant B shall set out in attached list No. 2.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 7, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a trust agreement with C as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) or “each of the instant real estate 1 or 2” as indicated in the separate sheet.
B. On November 7, 2012, C completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the above trust agreement in the future of the Plaintiff with respect to each of the instant real estate.
C. Defendant A occupies the real estate of this case, and Defendant B occupies the real estate of this case, respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are obligated to deliver real estate held by them to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.
B. As to this, Defendant A, in writing, has lawfully leased the instant Claim No. 1 to C, and had obtained prior consent from the Plaintiff at the time, and thus, he cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim.
On the other hand, the trust under the Trust Act requires the trustee to manage and dispose of the property right for the purpose of the trust by transferring a specific property right to the trustee or disposing of it, so if the trustee completes the registration of ownership transfer in the future, the ownership is entirely transferred to the trustee outside the country, and the ownership in the internal and internal relationship with the trustee is not reserved to the truster. As such, the validity of the trust is that the trustee has the right to manage the trust property inside and outside the country, but the trustee bears a restriction on the management of the trust property in accordance with the trust contract within the scope of the purpose of the trust, and this is also the same in the case of a real estate security trust.
Supreme Court Decision 200