The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on adopted evidence: (a) the plaintiff (trustee) and D (trustee) entrusted the land of this case to the plaintiff on July 11, 2001; (b) the plaintiff constructed a new building on the land of this case and entered into the trust contract of this case with the purport of selling the above land and buildings as trust property; (c) the G Limited Company established a pledge with the amount of creation of the right to benefit under D’s trust contract of this case (hereinafter “the right to benefit of this case”) at KRW 19,34,80,000 on July 2001; (c) the sale procedure was conducted with respect to the right to benefit of this case; and (d) the defendant purchased the land of this case at KRW 8,843,460,980 on September 13, 207; and (d) the defendant expressed his intent to waive the right to benefit of this case to the plaintiff on December 31, 2014.

Then, the lower court determined that, in light of the following: (a) although D was in the position of truster and beneficiary at the time of the conclusion of the instant trust agreement, as the beneficiary of the instant trust agreement was sold thereafter, the beneficiary under the instant trust agreement was changed to D from the Defendant; and (b) when a beneficiary, other than the trustor, renounces the beneficiary’s right in the trust agreement designated as beneficiary, the trustee is not entitled to claim for trust expenses or damages to the beneficiary pursuant to Article 42(3) of the former Trust Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10924, Jul. 25, 2011).

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not exhaust all necessary deliberations and erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the content and legal nature of the right to benefit under a trust agreement, and the scope