[1] The purpose of the simultaneous performance defense system and the case where each of the parties' obligations is not in an inherent quid pro quo relationship in the bilateral contract, but can be admitted as a defense of simultaneous performance

[2] Where the seller Gap et al. agreed to the effect that "where a sales contract is terminated due to reasons attributable to Eul company, Gap et al. may request Byung company to terminate the trust contract without Eul company's consent while Gap et al. agreed to the effect that "the first beneficiary, Eul et al. shall pay Eul company's debt to Jung company within the upper limit of preferential profit and return the amount received from Eul company if the sales contract was terminated due to reasons attributable to Eul company, the case holding that Eul et al.'s obligation to transfer Eul company's trust property and obligation to return the sales contract or obligation to return the sales contract to Eul et al. simultaneously upon termination of the trust contract

[1] Article 536 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 536 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da6176 delivered on October 12, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 2307) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da24557 delivered on June 9, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1253)

Plaintiff and the deceased Nonparty, et al. (Law Firm Barun Law, Attorneys Yoon-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Coin Assets Trust Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Democratic, Attorneys Yoon Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2011Na2218 decided January 11, 2012

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. 원심판결 이유 및 원심이 적법하게 채택한 증거에 의하면, ① 베스트개발 주식회사(이하 ‘베스트개발’이라고만 한다)는 대전상호저축은행으로부터 프로젝트 파이낸싱(PF) 대출을 받아 천안시 (주소 생략) 일대 토지를 매입하여 아파트를 건설하는 내용의 이 사건 공동주택건설사업을 추진한 사실, ② 베스트개발은 2007. 11. 19. 망 소외인(이 사건 공동원고였으나 제1심 계속 중 사망하여 그 처와 자녀들인 원고들이 망 소외인을 소송수계하였다) 및 원고 1, 2(이하 ‘망인 등’이라 한다)와 사이에 사업구역 내에 위치한 이 사건 부동산(토지 4필지 및 그 지상 주택 1동)을 매매대금 합계 77억 원에 매수하는 내용의 이 사건 매매계약을 체결한 사실, ③ 이 사건 매매계약서에는 토지에 관한 매매대금 76억 7천만 원 중 계약금 7억 4천만 원은 계약 시 지급하고, 나머지 잔금은 ‘사업승인 후 PF 대출이 실시된 때 또는 계약 후 5개월 이내’ 중 먼저 도래하는 시기에 지급하며, 주택에 관한 매매대금 3천만 원은 계약금 없이 계약일로부터 7일 이내에 지급하며, 사업의 안정성을 위하여 이 사건 부동산을 신탁처리한다고 기재되어 있는 사실, ④ 망인 등은 이 사건 매매계약에 따라 2007. 11. 21. 피고와 사이에 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 ‘신탁기간: 신탁계약 체결 시부터 신탁부동산 처분(해지) 시까지, 위탁자: 망인 등, 수탁자: 피고, 신탁원본의 우선수익자: 대전상호저축은행(10억 100만 원), 신탁원본 및 신탁수익의 수익자: 망인 등, 매수예정자 및 채무자: 베스트개발, 채무자: 주식회사 우리경원, 대광기업, 태명에이지’로 하는 이 사건 부동산처분신탁계약을 체결하고 피고 앞으로 신탁계약을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 마친 사실, ⑤ 대전상호저축은행은 같은 날 베스트개발을 비롯한 채무자 회사들에게 합계 83억 원을 대출하면서 베스트개발에 갈음하여 그중 7억 7천만 원을 이 사건 매매계약에 따른 토지에 관한 계약금 및 주택에 관한 매매대금으로 망인 등에게 지급하였고, 베스트개발은 2009. 6. 30. 나머지 채무자 회사들의 대출금 채무 전액을 중첩적으로 인수한 사실, ⑥ 이 사건 신탁계약서에는 신탁기간 중에는 원칙적으로 신탁계약을 중도해지할 수 없고(제16조), 신탁기간 만료 또는 신탁해지에 의하여 신탁이 종료하며, 신탁종료 시 수탁자는 신탁원본을 수익자에게 교부한다(제19조)고 정하고 있고, 특약사항에는 “위탁자와 매수예정자는 본 신탁계약 체결과는 별도의 약정(이하 ‘별도약정’이라 한다)을 체결하기로 한다”고 정하고(제2조), “별도약정이 매수예정자의 귀책사유로 무효로 되거나 취소, 해제되는 경우에는 매수예정자의 권리는 무효화되며, 위탁자는 매수예정자의 동의 없이 수탁자에게 신탁해지를 요청할 수 있다. 단, 위탁자는 우선수익자에 대한 매수예정자의 채무를 우선수익한도금액 내에서 대위변제하여야 한다. 위탁자가 대위변제하지 아니할 경우 본조 제3항에 따라 처리하기로 한다”고 정하며(제6조 제2항), “별도약정이 위탁자의 귀책사유로 무효로 되거나 취소, 해제되어 매수예정자가 신탁재산의 소유권을 이전받을 수 없는 경우 또는 신탁기간 경과에 의하여 신탁이 종료되는 경우에는 위탁자는 별도약정에 의하여 매수예정자로부터 수취한 금액 일체를 매수예정자에게 반환하고, 수탁자에게 신탁해지를 요청할 수 있다. 매수예정자의 대금 반환 청구일로부터 3개월이 경과하였음에도 불구하고 위탁자가 매수예정자에게 금액 일체를 반환하지 않을 경우에, 우선수익자와 매수예정자, 수탁자가 협의하여 수탁자의 내부규정(부동산담보신탁업무규정)에 따라 신탁부동산을 처분하기로 하며, 처분에 따른 대금의 지급순위는 다음 각 호와 같으며, 이에 따른 신탁보수 및 제반 비용은 신탁재산에서 수취하기로 한다”고 하면서 그 지급순위로 ‘1. 신탁보수 및 제반 비용, 2. 우선수익자의 수익한도금액, 3. 수익자의 배당액’을 정하고 있는 사실(같은 조 제3항), ⑦ 베스트개발은 2007. 4. 24. 천안시장에게 이 사건 주택건설사업계획승인을 신청하였다가 2008. 3. 25. 불승인처분을 받았고, 2008. 6. 18. 재차 승인을 신청하였다가 2010. 8. 18. 이를 취하한 채 더 이상 사업을 진행하지 못하고 있는 사실, ⑧ 망인 등은 베스트개발이 잔금지급을 지체하자 2009. 4. 14. 베스트개발에 ‘2009. 4. 25.까지 매매잔대금을 지급하지 아니할 경우 이 사건 매매계약을 해지한다’는 취지의 통지를 하였으나 베스트개발은 현재까지 매매잔대금을 지급하지 않고 있는 사실을 알 수 있다.

2. Based on such factual basis, the lower court determined that the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded by exercising the right of rescission of the deceased, etc. due to the nonperformance of a Vietnam development (the original judgment, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, determined that the sales contract on the housing, the purchase price of which was fully paid, may also be rescinded at the same time, as long as the sales contract on the portion of the land was not implemented, on the grounds of the circumstances indicated in its holding). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs determined that the instant trust contract may be terminated in accordance with Article 6(2) of the instant special agreement

In addition, in order to terminate the instant trust contract, the Defendant’s assertion that the deceased, etc. ought to act on behalf of the Daejeon Mutual Savings Bank pursuant to the proviso of the said provision on the ground that “it is difficult to view the deceased, etc.’s performance of the duty of subrogation as the requisite or condition of suspension itself as the occurrence of the right of termination of the right of termination.” The instant trust contract was legitimately terminated upon delivery of the preparatory document dated April 19, 201 to the Defendant, and accepted the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant seeking the implementation of the procedure for cancellation of registration of ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate.

3. However, it is difficult to accept such a determination by the lower court for the following reasons.

A. According to the above facts, although the instant trust agreement uses the name of real estate disposal trust, it was concluded under the status of the purchaser, purchaser, etc. pursuant to the instant sales contract, which is a separate agreement between the deceased, etc. and the Vietnam Development, and thus, rather than the disposition of the instant real estate itself, it should be deemed that the purpose of securing a seller’s duty to transfer ownership in the form of registration of trust is to ensure the smooth and stable promotion of the instant joint housing construction project, and Daejeon Mutual Savings Bank is to utilize the name of the deceased, etc. as a priority beneficiary, to prepare the purchase price, etc.

B. In light of the purpose of the instant trust agreement, there was a need to link the validity of the instant trust agreement with the validity of the instant trust agreement, and accordingly, Article 6(2) and (3) of the terms of the instant trust agreement provides that the deceased, etc. and the Defendant unilaterally terminated the instant trust agreement without relation to the cause when the instant contract becomes null, void, and rescinded.

However, the main text of Article 6(2) of the instant trust agreement provides that the truster may terminate the instant trust agreement if the instant trust agreement becomes null and void, cancelled, or cancelled due to a cause attributable to the purchaser, and that “the truster shall pay the beneficiary’s debt to the prospective purchaser within the maximum amount of preferential profit,” and that Article 6(3) of the instant trust agreement provides that “if the instant trust agreement becomes null and void, cancelled, or cancelled due to a cause attributable to the truster, the truster shall return all of the amount received from the prospective purchaser to the prospective purchaser and terminate the instant trust agreement, the truster may terminate the instant trust agreement with regard to the truster’s exercise of the truster’s right to terminate the trust agreement.”

In the event the trust of this case is terminated, the principal of the trust shall be reverted to the beneficiary (see Article 19 of the Basic Contract). Thus, even if the trust is terminated upon exercising the truster's right to terminate the trust, the Daejeon Mutual Savings Bank, a first beneficiary, shall have the right to take precedence over the deceased, etc., who is the beneficiary, at least within the maximum amount of profit. The deceased, etc. and the defendant, in relation to the exercise of the truster's right to terminate the trust after the termination of the trust of this case, set forth in Article 6 (2) and (3) of the Special Clause of the Trust Contract of this case, that the deceased, etc., paid a debt to the Daejeon Mutual Savings Bank, on behalf of the deceased, etc., or returned the purchase price already paid to the Vietnam Development (in this case, the Vietnam Mutual Savings Bank shall be

C. The right to defense of simultaneous performance is a system that recognizes the relation between each other's obligations on the basis of the concept of fairness and the principle of good faith and allows the other party to refuse the other party to perform his/her obligations when the other party's obligations are requested to discharge his/her obligations without performing the other party's obligations or not providing the other party's obligations. In light of the purport of such a system, even if each obligation borne by the party is not in a bilateral contract's own quid pro quo relationship, the right to defense of simultaneous performance may be acknowledged in a case where the specific contractual relationship has a meaning of quid pro quo and there are circumstances under which each party's quid pro quo relationship should be acknowledged in accordance with the terms of the agreement on the obligation to be borne by the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da6176, Oct. 12, 199).

As seen earlier, the obligation to pay for the deceased, etc. or the obligation to return the purchase price, upon termination of the trust, was prepared by the defendant to deal with the issue of the transfer of trust property to the first beneficiary within the limit of profit. The priority interest of the Daejeon Mutual Savings Bank is to secure the claim for the loans to be granted to the deceased, etc. If the defendant unilaterally has the deceased, etc. transfer the trust property on the ground of the termination of trust by the deceased, etc., the security right can be invalidated and terminated, and the overall regulatory structure and contents of the instant trust agreement can be terminated once the instant trust contract is invalidated, cancelled, and terminated. However, in order to seek the transfer of trust property to the defendant on the ground of the termination of trust, the trust agreement in this case should be interpreted as being repaid within the limit of priority profit (Article 6(2) of the Special Clause of the instant trust agreement) and return the purchase price already paid to Vietnam Development (Article 6(3) of the Special Clause of the instant trust agreement).

D. The proviso of Article 6(2) proviso of the instant trust agreement provides that “If a truster does not act on behalf of the truster, it shall be dealt with pursuant to paragraph (3) of this Article.” Article 6(3) provides that “If the truster does not return all of the amount to the purchaser despite the lapse of three months from the date on which the purchaser requested the return of the price to the purchaser, the truster shall dispose of the trust real estate in consultation with the first beneficiary, the purchaser, and the trustee, in accordance with the trustee’s internal regulations, and then appropriate the remainder after deducting trust remuneration and all of the expenses.”

As seen earlier, when the truster terminates the instant trust agreement, the truster’s duty to transfer trust property and the truster’s duty to pay for the trust property or duty to return the sales price are placed in the simultaneous performance relationship. However, in cases where the truster fails to fulfill his/her duty to pay for the trust property or duty to return the sales price, the trustee is placed in a situation where the truster fails to fulfill his/her duty to transfer the trust principal for a long time despite the termination of the trust. In preparation for such circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that each of the above provisions is specially provided in the purport that the trustee would be able to escape from the restraint of legal relationship following the termination of trust by having the truster dispose of trust property by himself/herself and directly performing his/her duty to pay for the trust property or to return the sales price. Therefore, even if the decedent and the Defendant provided that the trustee limit the trustee’s right to dispose

E. According to the records of this case, in the preparatory document of June 1, 201, submitted by the court below, Defendant attorney stated that "Article 6 (2) of the Special Clause on the Trust Contract of this case contains the expression "payment by subrogation", but the substantial content of the above provision is no way to protect the rights of the beneficiary in the event the trust property is extinguished due to the termination of the trust contract and the trust property is returned to the truster." Thus, in order to treat the trust property with the trust property, the truster pays (priority) revenue to the beneficiary and the trust property is attributed to the truster, instead of paying the trust property, it is sufficient to view that the court below has asserted that the truster has the ownership transfer obligation on the real estate of this case due to the termination of the trust contract of this case to be borne by the defendant, and that there is a simultaneous performance relationship with the plaintiffs. Thus, the court below should have made clear judgment as to the legitimacy thereof by demanding the defendant's defense of simultaneous performance.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion as above simply by finding that the performance of the duty of subrogation by the deceased, etc. constitutes the requirement or condition of suspension of the right to terminate the contract. Thus, the court below did not err in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations by omitting judgment on important matters affecting the judgment or by neglecting the exercise of the right to explain. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)