All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

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

1. According to Article 42(2) of the former Trust Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10924, Jul. 25, 2011; hereinafter the same), with respect to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal on the validity of the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal and the waiver of the right to benefit, the trustee may claim compensation for damages, without his/her negligence, from the beneficiary or require the beneficiary to provide reasonable security, for the purpose of performing taxes, public charges, other expenses, and interest incurred in relation to trust

Meanwhile, Article 51(3) of the former Trust Act provides that a beneficiary may waive his/her right to benefit, and Article 42(3) provides that Article 42(2) shall not apply where a beneficiary renounces his/her right to benefit.

However, the purport of Article 51(3) of the former Trust Act that recognizes the waiver of the right to benefit is to prevent the beneficiary from being forced to acquire the right to benefit against his/her will, since the beneficiary is obligated to reimburse expenses pursuant to Article 42(2) of the former Trust Act.

Therefore, in the case of so-called self-profit trust where a truster becomes a beneficiary under a trust agreement, the truster and the beneficiary form a trust relationship on their own and designate the beneficiary as the beneficiary at the stage of establishing the trust, so that the truster and the beneficiary are intending to receive profits from the trust, it is necessary to bear not only the profits arising from the trust but also losses, and to exempt the truster from the obligation to reimburse expenses

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that in a self-profit trust, even if the truster and beneficiary waives the right to benefit, the truster and beneficiary cannot be exempted from the obligation to reimburse the expenses

Although the reasoning of the lower court did not contain any inappropriate points, it is due to the waiver of the Plaintiff’s right to benefit.