1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the defendant's assertion that is emphasized or added by the court of first instance, and as such, the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional or supplementary judgment

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) Although the Defendant is a truster under the instant security trust agreement and the agency business agreement, this is merely an entry in the form, and in substance, H constitutes a genuine project operator and a truster of the instant development project. Since the Defendant is in the position of “land seller” selling part of the project site necessary for the instant development project, and the Plaintiff is well aware of this part, it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to claim expenses equivalent to the instant development charges against the Defendant. 2) The time when the instant development charges were imposed on the Plaintiff (as of July 25, 2018) and the time when the Plaintiff paid the development charges accordingly (as of December 19, 2018) are terminated, and the instant security trust agreement is terminated, and the disposal and reversion of trust property therefrom is completed. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that it is related to trust affairs under the security trust agreement.

In addition, the development charges do not correspond to “tax and other tax and public charges on the instant trusted real estate” as provided in Article 15 of the instant collateral trust agreement, and do not constitute “expenses” or “damage.”

3) Even if the instant development charges are not executed against other preferential beneficiaries, the portion should be paid out of the trust property as the top priority prior to the execution of the principal and interest of the loan and the fixed construction costs. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not take measures to set the amount equivalent to the development charges as the reserve fund in violation of Article 23 and did so, and the principal and interest of the instant development charges subject to junior execution.