A. On July 31, 2006, when the seizure of each right to claim ownership transfer registration listed in the separate sheet No. 1 is cancelled, the procedure will be implemented to KimB on July 31, 2006 on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list;

B. On July 31, 2006, when the execution of the seizure of each right to claim ownership transfer registration listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list is cancelled, the procedure is implemented on July 31, 2006 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list;

C. On July 31, 2006, when the seizure of each right to claim ownership transfer registration in the separate sheet No. 3 is cancelled, KimB will implement the procedure for ownership registration on July 31, 2006 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 list.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-fourth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff has a taxation claim against KimB on the aggregate of the value-added tax and global income tax.

“. The KimB shall, on December 7, 2004, be between the Defendant and the consignee: KimB

Trustee: Defendant

Trust Period: up to July 30, 2005, a trust agreement was concluded to manage and preserve the ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trust agreement”). On December 8, 2004, the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to the trust on each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in the Defendant’s name. (c) The KimB and the Defendant entered into a longer trust agreement to change the trust period until July 31, 2006.

D. KimB is in excess of obligations because there are more small assets than active assets.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Gap 3-1 to 2, Gap 4-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

"A. Based on the subrogation right of the creditor under the Civil Act, the plaintiff claims against KimB to KimB for the registration of ownership transfer based on the expiration of the trust period on July 31, 2006 of the trust contract of this case on behalf of the defendant in subrogation of KimB in order to preserve the tax claim against KimB." (b) This case's trust contract of this case terminated due to the expiration of the trust period on July 31, 2006, and the plaintiff, the creditor against KimB, can exercise the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer on behalf of KimB by subrogation of the insolvent KimB. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure of ownership transfer on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, and 3 on July 31, 2006.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Judgment on the defense that the plaintiff's claim should be accepted on the condition that the seizure is cancelled

1) The defendant's gist of defense

As to the right to claim for ownership transfer registration of each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3 against the defendant of KimB based on the termination of the instant trust contract, there was a seizure as shown in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the condition that the above seizure be cancelled.

2) Determination

Where the right to claim for registration of transfer of ownership seeks the implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership based on the right to claim for registration of transfer of ownership of a real estate attached by a third party, the third debtor becomes final and conclusive and conclusive, and in such a case, the court shall not accept it unless it conditioned to the cancellation of seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98DaOOO, Feb. 9, 1999).

In full view of the results of response by the president of the National Health Insurance Corporation (OB)'s branch office to the fact-finding of this case, the creditors of KimB, such as the head of Pyeongtaek-si Tax Office, the head of Dongwon Tax Office, the head of Suwon Tax Office, the director of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, and the president of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation (OB)'s OB branch office, etc., shall attach the right to claim for registration of transfer of ownership based on the termination of the trust contract of this case against the defendant of KimB as shown in the above list, and each of the above notices of seizure reached the defendant at the time of each of the seizure dates listed in the above list.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is well-grounded, and the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to the termination of the trust contract of this case with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3, subject to the cancellation of the execution of seizure as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2,

B. Determination as to the defense of simultaneous performance on the ground of KimB’s duty to pay remuneration under the instant trust agreement

1) The defendant's argument

The trust fees that the Defendant did not receive from KimB pursuant to the instant trust agreement reach the total amount of OOO, and the truster’s obligation to pay trust fees and transfer trust property to the trustee is related to simultaneous performance. Therefore, the Defendant is only obligated to pay the above trust fees from KimB and to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership.

2) Determination

The duty to pay remuneration for a trust that a truster or a beneficiary bears and the duty to transfer the trust property to a beneficiary, a truster, or a truster, etc. at the time of termination of the trust is an obligor arising from a trust relationship. Before the termination of the trust, the trustee may sell the trust property and appropriate the proceeds from the sale of the trust property for payment in preference to other rights-holders. Even after the trust property belongs to the beneficiary, etc. after the termination of the trust, the duty to pay remuneration for the trust property under Articles 62 and 49 of the former Trust Act (amended by Act No. 10924, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) is recognized to be in accord with the duty to pay remuneration for the trust property under Articles 42(1) and 43 of the former Trust Act (amended by Act No. 10924, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply). 200O’s duty to pay remuneration for the trust property under consideration of equity and 2000O’s.

“The trust fee from December 7, 2004 to July 31, 2006, which is the contract term of the instant trust contract, is an OOO. In the instant trust contract, if the ownership transfer becomes known even after the trust term has expired due to the truster’s reasons, the trust fee shall be calculated according to the ratio of the remuneration to the amount of the trust period up to the date of the transfer of ownership, and KimB did not pay the above trust fee even after the trust contract of this case was terminated on July 31, 2006, and it was executed on the condition that the Defendant did not transfer the ownership of each real estate listed in the attached Tables 1, 2, and 3 list as shown in the attached Tables 1, 2, and 3 list, and it is recognized that the Defendant failed to transfer the ownership of each real estate listed in the attached Table 1, 2, and 3 list, and that it is calculated on the basis of these facts, the following period is as follows.”

Number of days

Calculation

Trust Remuneration

From December 7, 2004 to July 31, 2006

602 Date

OOOE

From August 1, 2006

Until November 15, 2012

2,299 days

OOOOE ¡À602 days 】 2,299 days

OOOE

Total

OOOE

Therefore, at the same time, the defendant is obligated to pay the trust fee OOOO as a result of the termination of the trust contract of this case, and the defendant's defense is justified within the above scope of recognition.

C. Sub-committee

Ultimately, at the same time, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on July 31, 2006 to KimB on each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3, subject to the cancellation of the execution of each seizure described in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3, at the same time as the payment of OOB from KimB.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and its operation is reasonable, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.