beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the court below, based on its stated reasoning, is in the position of the defendant as an agent trust for the business of this case and as an agent for the business of this case, is in the position to assume the obligation to repay the project cost or the loan of the lending financial institution, which is the contracting party, to manage the sale price by deposit in the account under the name of the defendant, and it shall be deemed that the buyer has the indirect interest to be protected in the event that the sale price is prevented from being useful or the business is no longer reasonable. The trust contract of this case and the business agreement of this case provide two priority
Even if this is determined the order of execution of the settlement of accounts for sale, and it is difficult to view that it directly grants the buyer the right to the contract to receive payment according to the order of priority, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a contract for a third party for the buyer.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles on the contract for a third party and the duty of care.
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court determined that the instant trust contract and business agreement cannot be deemed terminated on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, and further, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have received sales payment from the eam Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “eamam Development”) on the ground that the instant trust contract and business agreement with the eroam Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “eroam Development”) were received on the legal basis
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there are grounds for appeal.