Address omitted

○○○○

Attorney ○-○, et al.

Address omitted

Place of service omitted

Representative Director;

Manager ○○○

Law Firm ○○, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney OC

Address omitted

Representative Director;

Law Firm ○○, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee In-bok

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties:

A. On May 5, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased 14,413,848,400 won from Busan Metropolitan City’s purchase of real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) (the Plaintiff paid 1,441,384,840 won as the first intermediate payment on May 6, 2002 and September 5, 2002). On August 5, 2002, the Plaintiff obtained the approval of the housing construction project plan with the content that newly constructs real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on the instant land from the head of Busan ○○○ head of the Gu (hereinafter “instant project right”).

B. On October 5, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the instant land and business rights to the Plaintiff, the Intervenor, △△△△, the Defendant’s Intervenor, to the △△△△△, 3.7 billion won; (b) concluded a sales contract with the terms that the Plaintiff would be paid KRW 1.45 million within two months from the date of the contract; and (c) KRW 1.25 million within six months from the date of the contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and (d) paid KRW 1 billion from the △△△△△△△ on the same day. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 1.1 billion from the Defendant on November 7, 2002; and (1) the Defendant was entrusted with the instant land and business rights to the Defendant; (b) the Defendant newly constructed the instant land on the instant land to sell the instant apartment land as trust property; and (c) the Defendant received part of the above sales revenue as the beneficiary, and (d) the Defendant was paid as the trust agreement with the trust property.

D. On November 15, 2002, the Plaintiff did not receive 2.7 billion won (the purchase price) - one billion won (the base price) for the sale of the instant apartment on November 15, 2002 - 1 billion won (the sale price in this case - the sale price in this case - 1.9 billion won (the investment price in this case), and agreed that the sales contract in this case was cancelled and the business right in this case was transferred again to the Plaintiff (the execution agreement in this case) within 3 months from the date of sale of the instant apartment, and the investment principal was recovered within 1.2 billion won from the date of completion of the project in this case (the investment agreement in this case), and as to the implementation of the investment agreement in this case, the first apartment in this case was decided to be paid at the time of completion of the project in this case (the execution agreement in this case).

E. On November 8, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land in accordance with the instant sales contract, and the instant business right was also transferred, and on the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land on the ground of the instant trust agreement to the Defendant on the same day.

F. On March 21, 2003, the approval for the sale of the apartment of this case was granted and around April 14, 2003, despite the termination of the sale of the apartment of this case, the plaintiff did not pay 1.9 billion won to the plaintiff the investment principal from March 21, 2003 to the expiration of 3 months from the approval date for the sale of the apartment of this case. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff to transfer the business right of this case to the plaintiff under the execution agreement of this case (or during the execution procedure for the change of beneficiary name under the trust agreement of this case was changed to the plaintiff). The judgment of winning the plaintiff was sentenced in the first instance court. On July 22, 2005, at the appellate court under the appeal of Cheongsung Masung, the plaintiff implemented the procedure for the change of beneficiary name under the trust agreement of this case, with respect to the land of this case and the land of this case, < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 200320, Mar. 21, 2003>

2. The parties' assertion

On July 22, 2005, the plaintiff clearly expressed his intention to change the beneficiary under the trust agreement of this case to the plaintiff with the consent of the plaintiff, and notified it to the defendant (where it is not acknowledged that the beneficiary was notified to the defendant, by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case on behalf of the plaintiff). The beneficiary under the trust agreement of this case is argued to be changed to the plaintiff, and the defendant's change in the trust agreement of this case means the transfer of the beneficiary right under the trust agreement of this case or the transfer of the beneficiary status. If the beneficiary is considered to be a preferential assignment of the right of assignment of the right of assignment of the right of this case, the plaintiff does not meet the requirements for establishing the general transfer of the right of assignment (issuance, possession or registration of the certificate or notification to the defendant) or the requirements for setting up the transfer of the right of benefit (the consent of the defendant or notification to the defendant). In particular, according to the provisions of Article 15 of the trust agreement of this case between the defendant and the defendant, the original beneficiary cannot transfer the right of this case or the defendant's right of assignment.

3. Determination

A beneficiary under the instant trust contract shall acquire trust proceeds calculated by the method stipulated in the trust contract, and a person in a position to receive trust property according to the method determined at the time of termination of the trust contract (Article 13(2) and (3) of the instant trust contract) and so-called “a beneficiary under a contract for a third party” shall be deemed to be a beneficiary

Therefore, in light of the above provisions, in light of the above provisions, the beneficiary's right to designate or change the beneficiary under the contract for a third party, and the defendant, who is a summary, Eul evidence 1, the trust contract of this case is a basic related person. The beneficiary of this case is the original beneficiary of the trust contract of this case, but if the consent of the third party is obtained, the third party can be the beneficiary (Article 13 of the contract). In the case where the beneficiary is changed, the beneficiary and the beneficiary or his heir must submit the reason in writing to the defendant without delay and take the prescribed procedure (Article 27 of the contract). The beneficiary is different from the above provisions of the trust contract of this case, such as Article 15 of the contract, which clearly states that the beneficiary cannot transfer, succeed, or pledge the beneficiary's right without the consent of the defendant, and Article 15 of the contract, which provides that the beneficiary and the defendant grant the right to designate or change the beneficiary to Dok Do / Do e/ e., the beneficiary's right to designate or change.

Then, on the premise that Mag terms and conditions obtain the consent of a third party, the beneficiary can be changed to a third party even without the consent or consent of the defendant. Accordingly, in accordance with the mediation between the plaintiff and Mag terms and conditions on July 22, 2005 between the plaintiff and Mag terms and conditions, Mag terms and conditions expressed their intent to change the beneficiary under the instant trust agreement to the plaintiff from Mag terms and conditions with the consent of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff notified the defendant of the change to the beneficiary by the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint in lieu of the beneficiary's status or in lieu of Mag terms and conditions, the beneficiary under the instant trust agreement is deemed to have

4. Conclusion

Ultimately, it is clear that the beneficiary under the trust agreement of this case has changed to the plaintiff, and as long as the defendant is dissatisfied with this, the plaintiff has an interest to seek confirmation. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Young-kon

For judge Laos