1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant Asian Trust Co., Ltd. is expanded by this court.

1. Case summary and the presumed factual basis

A. The summary of the case is that the Plaintiff completed and delivered the new construction of the building contracted by Defendant A, but did not receive construction cost of KRW 1,120,00,000,00. The Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff by Defendant A, and that Defendant A entered into a trust contract with Defendant Asian Trust and the ownership of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) with Defendant A while in excess of the obligation, and transferred the ownership of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 with Defendant B, D, and C (hereinafter “instant land”) with Defendant Asia under excess of the obligation, and transferred the ownership of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 with Defendant A (hereinafter “instant land”). All of them asserted that it constitutes a private trust detrimental to the Plaintiff, the obligee, and sought for the payment of the construction cost and delay damages for the cancellation of the ownership registration of the instant land as its primary property restitution (registration).

The judgment of the first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A, B, D, and C and the primary claim against the Defendant Asian Trust, and the Defendants appealed against the part against which they lost.

B. On May 15, 2009, 1,364,00,000 won for construction work of constructing the instant building on the instant land owned by Defendant A, and the construction work period from May 2009 to August 2009, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with Defendant A for the following: (a) evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including all of the paper numbers); (b) evidence Nos. 3 and 4; and (c) evidence Nos. 3 and 4; and (d) evidence Nos. 3 and 4; and (b) evidence Nos. 3 and 4; and (c) evidence No. 964, May 2, 2009