2011Na105128 Return of the purchase price

A

Hanol Trust Co., Ltd. (formerly: Daol Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd.)

Suwon District Court Decision 201Gahap4541 Decided September 29, 2011

June 22, 2012

July 6, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 107,480,000 won with 5% interest per annum from October 21, 2005 to August 20, 2008, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court’s reasoning is that the reasoning of the first instance judgment is identical to that of the first instance judgment except for the following additional parts, and thus, this Court cites it as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (it is not different from the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court even in light of the evidence

2. Additional matters;

Section 6. The sixthth sentence of the first instance court is followed:

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's lack of proof against the insolvency of the non-party company.

In full view of the aforementioned evidence, Gap's evidence, Eul's evidence, Eul's evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and Eul's evidence Nos. 2-1 through 4, the non-party company and the defendant concluded a trust contract on June 29, 2004 and entered into a trust contract on the trust property; the non-party company entrusted the above trust property to the defendant; the trust principal is acquired by the above trust property or by subrogation; the profits accrued from the management of money belonging to the above trust property, such as the proceeds from the disposal of the above trust property; and the non-party company's claim against the non-party 1 for the cancellation of the sale contract can not be acknowledged as the plaintiff's claim against the non-party 2 for the cancellation of the sale contract (the non-party 1's claim against the non-party 4's non-party company's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party company's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party company's non-party 1's non-party company's non-party 1's claim for cancellation of the sale contract.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court which partially accepted the plaintiff's claim is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.

Judge Yellow-Jil of the presiding judge

Judge Lee Jae-young

Judges Kim Dong-young