The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. As to the third ground for appeal

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion that the instant trust contract and the instant business agreement and a series of amendments thereto should be deemed the same legal act in determining the fraudulent act, the lower court: (a) there is no evidence suggesting that the instant business agreement only provides trust property to the “person who designates the large owner,” and there is no evidence suggesting that one bank (hereinafter “one bank”) among the lender would be a trustee; (b) the provisions of Articles 10 subparag. 2 and 15(5) and (6) of the instant business agreement alone cannot be deemed to specify or specify the contents of the instant trust agreement, such as the trust period, the reason for disposal of the trusted real estate, the disposal price, the disposal method, and the method of disposal; (c) while the instant trust agreement and the lender’s discretion regarding the disposal of trusted real estate are widely recognized, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant agreement and the instant trust agreement are subject to the same conditions as the instant agreement and the instant trust agreement, and thus, cannot be deemed as a series of changes in the agreement and the instant trust agreement without the approval of construction payment.