1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On June 27, 2014, the Asian Trust Co., Ltd. between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the facts and the plaintiffs’ assertion is as follows: “(comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax)” in the 5th 8th eth 13th eth 13th eth e., “. the plaintiffs are priority beneficiaries at the time of the instant trust agreement, (Plaintiff 2, 3, 9, 10, and 12), or are transferred (Plaintiff 7 and 8), or the trustee in bankruptcy of the priority beneficiary (Plaintiff 1, 4, 5, 6, 11)” in the eth eth 10 to 62th eth 10 of the first eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth.

2. Article 22 (1) 2 of the Trust Contract of this case alleged by the defendant includes the property tax, etc. imposed on each real estate of this case, which is the truster of the real estate of this case, as the "property tax, etc. notified until the disposal price is received" includes the property tax, etc. levied on each real estate of this case. Thus, the Asian trust should pay the amount equivalent to the property tax, etc. imposed on the defendant before the plaintiffs, who are the truster of priority beneficiary or priority beneficiary,

Therefore, since the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit of this case is the defendant, the plaintiffs' claim is without merit.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant cannot seek payment of the amount equivalent to the property tax, etc. imposed on the Asia Trust based on Article 22(1)2 of the instant trust agreement, even though the pertinent tax, such as the property tax, etc., notified until the disposal price is received, is included in the pertinent tax, which is imposed on the truster, in the second order when the Asia Trust realized each of the instant real estate and settle the disposal price pursuant to the instant trust agreement as alleged by the Defendant.

1. The defendant