The judgment below

The part of the case against Defendant H, L, and T is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

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

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. The trust under the Trust Act requires the trustee to manage and dispose of the property right for the purpose of the trust by transferring a specific property right to the trustee or disposing of it (Article 1(2) of the Trust Act). Thus, if the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the future of the trustee in the real estate trust, the ownership is entirely transferred to the trustee, and the ownership is not reserved in the internal relationship with the truster.

As such, as the validity of the trust, the trustee has the right to manage the trust property domestically and externally as a result of the transfer of the ownership of the trust property to the trustee, but the trustee is merely a burden of restrictions on the management of the trust property within the scope of the purpose of the trust.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da70460, Apr. 12, 2002).

The judgment below

In addition, in full view of the reasons and the evidence duly admitted, the following circumstances are revealed.

(1) On January 5, 2005, gender-friendly industry development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “sexual-friendly industry development”) changed its trade name into “S&D Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter “S&D”), and sold unsold apartment units among WW X apartment units unsold in lots at the two weeks of new construction of gender-friendly industry development to the K&D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S&D”), and the G&D took out loans from the promotion-oriented mutual savings bank (hereinafter “promotion mutual savings bank”) around that time in order to pay the purchase-price for gender-friendly industry development.

(2) The development of the sex-friendly industry is March 30, 2005 real estate security trust business.