Whether a person who comprehensively succeeds trust property is a third party or not.

Since a person who has comprehensively taken over the trust property cannot be called a so-called third party, he/she may claim the effect of rescission of the trust contract to the same person.

Article 545 of the former Civil Code

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho District Association and one other

State

This case is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

The defendant's attorney shall revoke the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff et al., and the plaintiff et al.'s attorney shall seek a judgment in the original judgment.

The method of proof of actual statement wage of both parties is that the attorney at the court below et al. used only 4 of 251 amam-dong 251 from among the main buildings listed in the attached Table for the response of the defendant's attorney at the court below, and it is true that the Dong-dong was used by the Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si

In addition, the defendant asserts that the property of Japan or the former citizens was forfeited to the Republic of Korea due to the lack of external opposing power and the August 15 year, so the plaintiff's claim is unreasonable. However, the plaintiff's claim is no theoretical basis. Further, the plaintiff stated that the gold-day was the administrator of the trust relationship on March 11, 4280, and that the purchase fund of the real estate was raised as the money of the purchase of the real estate and the mortgage on the previous house owned by the Joseon Trust Bank at each purchase, and that the defendant's legal representative was 13 percent of the total amount of the purchase of the real estate at the 5th anniversary of the fact of the plaintiff's main office, it is no longer acceptable that the plaintiff's return used the real estate for the purpose of distributing it to the same office or the same office from the short-term 426.10. The plaintiff's original purchase of the real estate for the purpose of distributing it to the plaintiff's main office, but it cannot be said that it was the plaintiff's new purchase of the real estate for the Japanese War.

In addition, even if the plaintiff's association et al. entrusted the real estate to the non-party 1 et al. who is Japan, the original trust agreement cannot be asserted against the defendant as the validity of the trust agreement and the rescission. In addition, the property owned by the non-party 2, 3, and 4 who is located in the territory of the Republic of Korea is confiscated from the military of the United States, that is, the original acquisition, and transferred to the Republic of Korea and transferred by succession. Therefore, the plaintiff's association cannot assert the trust agreement to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's association stated that the defendant cannot assert the trust agreement with evidence of Nos. 5 through 7, 8-1, 12, 9-1, 10-1, 2-1, 11-1, 2-1, 11-2, 3, 4-1, and 5-1, 12-1, 2-1, 2-2, 15-1, 2-2, and 8-1, 3-2-1, 10-2.

According to the contents of Gap evidence No. 11-1 to 15 which can be presumed as a genuine establishment of official documents, the real estate recorded in the attached list was recorded in the name of non-party 1, non-party 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 who is Japan on the register, and thus, Gap evidence No. 1, 2, 10-1, non-party 12, 13, non-party 2, 3, and 4 of the court below's witness No. 3, evidence No. 6-1, 7, evidence No. 8-1, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10-2 of the previous evidence No. 8, 7, 8-1, 9-2, 10, and 10-2 of the previous evidence No. 1, which were purchased by the public trust of the Japanese government and the Japanese government No. 8, the Japanese government No. 1 and the Japanese government No. 7, were the purport of the Japanese government No. 8.

In addition, the declaration of intention to cancel by the plaintiff's association, etc. on March 13, 4283 of the short-term 4283.3.14.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0.00..00.0.0.00.0.0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.

Even if the plaintiff's club et al. entrusted the real estate in this case to the non-party 1, Japan, the original trust agreement is that the ownership of the real estate will be transferred to the trustee in the relationship with the third party, and thus, the plaintiff cannot assert the validity of the rescission of the trust agreement of the real estate as the third party, but the defendant who comprehensively succeeded to the plaintiff's properties shall not be deemed a so-called third party, so the defendant'

Then, the defendant again argues that the property owned by Japanese people in the territory of the Republic of Korea is confiscated by the US military, that is, it is not transferred to the Korean people, and that it was not transferred to the Korean people, and that the plaintiff club cannot assert the trust contract to the defendant, but it is not reasonable that the defendant succeeded to or acquired the property owned by the plaintiff club as shown in the exhibition.

Based on the above reasoning, the defendant is obligated to perform his duty with respect to the plaintiff's club, etc. on March 14, 4285 on the ground that the defendant is obligated to perform the binding obligation to apply for ownership transfer registration of the real estate in this case due to the rescission of the trust contract with the short-term time on March 14, 4285, and the original judgment which allowed the plaintiff's church's claim for the principal lawsuit is just and there is no reason to prosecute the defendant's principal case. It is decided

Judge Park Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)