2. B

On August 8, 2014, each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of termination of the trust will be implemented.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The plaintiffs are attached Table in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D D (hereinafter referred to as the "project site of this case")

Each house in this case (hereinafter referred to as "each house in this case") and the site in this case are owned, and the defendant is a regional housing association established to promote a joint housing construction project under the Housing Act (hereinafter referred to as "project in this case") in the project site in this case.

B. Around August 2008, the Plaintiffs entered into a joint agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant to implement the instant project in the instant project site, and the Plaintiffs signed a joint agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant to be supplied with the completed newly-built house after the implementation of the project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”).

Article 1 (Purpose of Contract)

The purpose of this Arrangement is to implement apartment housing projects jointly with the Si Corporation in the instant project site, including each of the instant housing owned by the Plaintiffs, by the method of a regional housing association project. In addition, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant shall fulfill their mutual rights and obligations in order to achieve the purpose of the Agreement, as they join the district housing association promoted by the Defendant after acquiring the qualification for joining the district housing association promoted by the Defendant, and thereby enabling the Plaintiff to become a member of the Defendant, and

Article 2 (Duty to Cooperate, etc.)

2. Upon the conclusion of this Agreement, the Plaintiffs enter into an investment agreement with the Defendant on each of the instant houses owned by the Plaintiffs, and register the disposition of ownership transfer registration in accordance with the following provisions. A. As to a house (building) the exclusive use area of which exceeds 60 square meters, the Plaintiffs shall transfer ownership to the Defendant (representative E) prior to the filing date of the application for authorization to establish an association, and shall not interfere with the progress of the project and the acquisition

Article 5 (Transfer of Ownership of Land)

1. In order to achieve the purpose of jointly constructing buildings, such as apartment houses owned by each association member after the Defendant obtained authorization to establish an association, the Plaintiffs are in accordance with the Trust Act to the Defendant, the executor of the land owned by the Plaintiff.

shall be registered as a transfer of ownership and trust.

Article 6 (Admission to Membership)

2. The Plaintiff shall continue to maintain its membership from the date of applying for authorization to establish the association until the date of approval.

Article 8 (Other Matters)

1. The defendant shall obtain authorization to establish an association under the Housing Act to ensure the successful implementation of housing projects, and the plaintiff shall actively cooperate. This agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be effective until the liquidation date of the association, regardless of the time before or after the above authorization.

C. Since the exclusive use area of each of the instant housing exceeds 60 square meters, the Plaintiffs agreed to trust the instant housing to the Defendant by the date of applying for authorization to establish the Defendant’s association pursuant to the instant agreement, and entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on August 20, 2008 and a trust contract with the following contents (hereinafter “instant trust”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 26, 2008.

The Consignee C District Housing Association Members (Contributors in kind)

Defendant

Article 1 (Purpose of Trust) The purpose of the instant trust is to facilitate the local housing business by entrusting the trustee with the money contribution to the trustee.

Article 2 (Trust Property) Any property acquired by the defendant, such as money contributions and assets in kind in lieu of money contributions, etc. borne by the truster in accordance with the union regulations, shall be deemed trust property and shall not be the proprietary property of the trustee.

A beneficiary under Article 3 shall be a truster.

Article 6 (Termination of Trust) Even before the occurrence of the cause for termination of the trust, if necessary, the trust may be terminated by agreement between the truster and the trustee.

Article 7 (Application of Trust Provisions) Matters not specified in this section shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting, if there is no provision in accordance with the rules of the defendant, and if it is impossible to pass a resolution by the general meeting, the relevant regulations shall apply.

D. The Plaintiffs, as a service of the duplicate of the instant complaint, declared the Defendant to withdraw from partnership and terminate the trust contract, and the duplicate of the instant complaint reached the Defendant on August 8, 2014.

E. Relevant provisions

O former Trust Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10924, Jul. 25, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Article 55 (Termination of Trusts)

If any cause prescribed by a deed of trust takes place, or the object of the trust is attained or becomes impossible to achieve, the trust shall be terminated.

Article 56 (Termination of Trust)

A trust in which the truster receives all of the trust benefits may be terminated at any time by the truster or his heir. In this case, the provisions of Article 689 (2) of the Civil Act shall be applied mutatis mutandis.

Article 58 (Idem)

The termination of the trust shall be determined by the provisions of the preceding two Articles, except as otherwise provided for in the deed of trust.

Article 59 (Reversion of Trust Property after Termination of Trust)

When the trust is terminated under Article 56 or 57, the trust property shall belong to the beneficiary.

Article 60 (Idem)

Where a trust is terminated, if the person to whom the trust property reverts does not prescribe in the deed of trust, the trust property shall revert to the truster or his heir.

O Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act

Article 39 (Replacement, New Joining, etc. of Members of Workplace or Workplace Housing Association)

(1) A regional housing association or workplace housing association shall not replace the relevant association members or have them newly join after obtaining authorization for its establishment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 (including each number), Eul 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Article 56 of the former Trust Act provides that "a trust in which a truster receives all trust benefits may be terminated at any time by the truster or his/her heir." In cases of a self-profit trust in which the truster himself/herself becomes a beneficiary, barring any special circumstance, the truster may terminate the new trust contract at any time in principle pursuant to Article 56 of the former Trust Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da47467, Aug. 19, 2003). In such cases, the trust property shall be reverted to the beneficiary pursuant to Article 59 of the former Trust Act.

B. In light of the above legal principles, the instant trust agreement is a self-profit trust whose beneficiary is a truster, and Article 3 of the instant trust agreement constitutes “a trust in which the truster accepts the entire trust interest,” barring any special circumstance, and thus, the Plaintiffs, the truster, at any time, may terminate the instant trust agreement in principle pursuant to Article 56 of the former Trust Act. As the Plaintiffs expressed their intent to terminate the instant trust agreement as a delivery of a duplicate copy of the instant lawsuit, barring any special circumstance, each of the instant houses belongs to the Plaintiffs, the beneficiary of the instant trust, pursuant to Article 59 of the former Trust Act. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership for each of the instant houses on the grounds that the trust was terminated on August 8, 2014.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Regarding this, the defendant has a special provision on the termination of the trust of this case under the trust contract of this case, so the plaintiffs' arbitrary termination of the trust contract of this case is not allowed.

On the other hand, Article 58 of the former Trust Act provides that "where there is a special provision in the deed of trust concerning the termination of the trust, it shall be subject to such determination, notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding two Articles." Thus, if there is a special provision restricting the truster's right to terminate the trust, the truster's right to terminate the trust shall be restricted accordingly." Article 6 of the trust contract of this case provides that " even before the cause for termination of the trust arises, if necessary, the truster may terminate the trust by agreement between the truster and the trustee." Thus, it is appropriate to interpret that the truster's arbitrary termination of the trust contract of this case is not allowed until the cause for termination of the trust occurs under the opposite interpretation. Therefore, Article 6 of the trust contract of this case is a provision that restricts the truster's right to terminate the trust contract of this case under Article 56 of the former Trust Act pursuant to Article 58 of the former Trust Act.

B. As to this, the Plaintiffs’ limitation on the right of termination stipulated under Article 6 of the instant trust agreement is to restrict the right of termination of the truster, who is the Defendant’s partner, to the effect that the Plaintiffs may freely terminate the instant trust agreement, as long as they legally withdraw from the Defendant and no longer belong to the Defendant.

In light of the agreement of this case and the contents of the trust agreement of this case, the local housing association does not necessarily need to trust the property rights of the association members to the association in order to promote the housing construction project. In full view of the agreement of this case and the contents of the trust agreement of this case, the trust of this case is entitled to subscribe to the defendant's association members, which owns the housing of this case exceeding 60 meters of exclusive use area, and the trust of this case was delayed for the purpose of promoting the project of this case by trusting the plaintiff's in kind to the defendant who is the trustee, the trustee, and promoting the project of this case. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the restriction of the truster's right to terminate the trust agreement of this case under Article 6 of the trust agreement of this case is related to the case where the truster is the defendant's association member

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act provides that “a regional housing association or workplace housing association shall not replace the relevant association member or have a new association member join after obtaining authorization for the establishment thereof,” it shall be deemed that a union member who has already obtained authorization for the establishment of a regional housing association, such as the Plaintiff, cannot withdraw from the association at will, unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as that a union member who has not yet obtained authorization for the establishment thereof may not allow the union member to withdraw from the association at will, unless there are special circumstances, such as that a union member may not allow the union member to withdraw from the association (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du20768, Feb. 10, 201; 205Da1952, 19569, Feb. 23, 2006).

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, in light of the purport of body before the pleading, the Defendant’s return to the instant case and the statement of evidence Nos. 4, upon opening an inaugural general meeting on August 27, 2008, applied for authorization of the establishment of the association to the head of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office on February 1, 201, and then withdrawn an application for authorization of the establishment of the said association on April 27, 2011, and can be recognized as having failed to file an application for authorization to establish the association thereafter. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiffs may freely withdraw from the Defendant and terminate the instant trust contract pursuant to Article 56 of the former Trust Act as a duplicate of the complaint of the instant case, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the instant trust contract was lawfully terminated on the same day. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s second appeal pointing this out is without merit.

C. Regarding this, the defendant union asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case is unfair, on the premise that the plaintiff's withdrawal was lawfully made, since there is a provision that does not allow the voluntary withdrawal of the union members (Article 6 (2) of the Agreement).

On the other hand, Article 6 (2) of the Agreement provides that "the plaintiff shall continue to maintain the membership from the date of application for authorization to establish the association to the date of approval for use." However, even if according to the above provision, the plaintiff bears the duty to continuously maintain the membership from the date of application for authorization to establish the association until the date of approval for use. As seen above, the defendant applied for authorization to establish the association on February 1, 201, and withdrawn the above association on April 27, 201, and did not thereafter apply for authorization to establish the association until the date of withdrawal. Thus, Article 6 (2) of the Agreement does not apply for any obstacle to the plaintiff's withdrawal from the defendant association on March 26, 2013, which is after the date of application for authorization to establish the association. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.