[1] Whether the provision on the right to peruse books under the Trust Business Act is a basis for limiting the right to request a trustee to peruse documents pertaining to the trust affairs of a truster under the Trust Business Act (negative)

[2] Whether the right to claim the "inspection of documents" related to trust affairs under the Trust Act includes the right to claim the " transmission of documents" (negative)

[1] The right to request inspection of documents related to the trust affairs under Article 34 of the Trust Act is aimed at securing legitimate rights and promoting the proper performance of obligations by guaranteeing various rights and obligations under the trust contract or the right of interested parties to supervise the trust affairs. In particular, the beneficiary’s exercise of such supervisory rights belongs to the essence of the right to benefit, which is the purpose of the trust contract, and thus cannot be restricted without reasonable grounds. On the other hand, the Trust Business Act regulates the right to request inspection of books and documents relating to trust property or issuance of copies and abstracts thereof to beneficiaries in a specific manner prescribed in the Act, while guaranteeing the beneficiary the right to request inspection of books and documents related to trust property under Article 17-10 of the Trust Business Act or the right to request inspection of documents related to the trust affairs in a certain manner. In particular, it is intended to achieve the legislative purpose of the Trust Business Act by securing the effectiveness of regulatory documents related to the inspection of particular books and documents pertaining to the trust affairs and accomplishing the legislative purpose of the Trust Business Act. Thus, the intrinsic nature of the Trust Business Act, which regulates the trust business’s trust affairs and regulations.

[2] The right to request "inspection" of documents concerning trust affairs guaranteed by the Trust Act does not include the right to request "delivery" of the relevant documents.

[1] Articles 17-10 and 43(1) of the Trust Business Act, Article 34 of the Trust Act / [2] Article 34 of the Trust Act

[Defendant-Appellant] 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-sik et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korea Land Trust Corporation

Seoul High Court Order 2006Ra227 dated April 14, 2006

All reappeals are dismissed. The costs of reappeals are borne by Re-Appellants.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 34 of the Trust Act provides that the right to request inspection of documents related to the trust affairs as provided for in Article 34 of the same Act shall aim at securing legitimate rights and ensuring the propriety of compulsory performance through guaranteeing the supervisory authority on the performance of the trust affairs. In particular, the beneficiary’s exercise of such supervisory authority belongs to the essence of the right to benefit, which is the object of the trust contract, and thus it cannot be restricted without reasonable grounds. On the other hand, the Trust Business Act regulates the right to request inspection of books and documents relating to the trust property or issuance of copies and abstracts thereof to beneficiaries in a specific manner prescribed in the above Act, and Article 43(1) of the same Act provides that the right to request inspection of books and documents related to the trust property or the right to request inspection of documents related to the trust affairs shall be guaranteed to the trust company, and thus, it shall be deemed to be aimed at achieving the legislative purpose of the same Act by securing the effectiveness of regulating the specific books and inspection of the trust property and accomplishing the legislative purpose of the trust affairs. Accordingly, the legislative purpose of the Trust Business Act, which regulates the trust business’s regulatory purpose.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the records of the first instance court partially accepted by the court below, the above Re-Appellant 1 corporation and the other party are truster and beneficiary, and the other party is trustee, and the land of this case owned by the Re-Appellant is entrusted to the other party, and the real estate development trust contract of this case was concluded to build apartment on the ground and settle trust relations with sale price or lease deposit, etc., and the other party after the conclusion of the above trust contract, send financial statements such as balance sheet, profit and loss statement, total balance sheet, etc. related to the performance of trust business periodically to the Re-Appellant, and request the approval of the completion of the business after sending the final balance sheet to the Re-Appellant, and the Re-Appellant requested the approval of the completion of the business by sending the final balance sheet upon the completion of the other party's business. The re-appellant raised a question about the other party's execution of the business expenses. However, the other party requested the confirmation of the accounting-related documents (hereinafter "accounting documents") related to each disbursement transaction and revenue transaction, and other evidence.

Based on these facts, the court below dismissed the application for provisional disposition of this case on the ground that the trustee is a trust company, as in this case, the special law of the Trust Act, and as long as the other party allows the re-appellant to peruse documents such as financial statements under the Trust Business Act, etc., or delivers them, the re-appellant did not have any explanation as to the right to request the provision of accounting documents and the necessity of preservation.

First, the argument in the grounds of re-appeal that the ownership of accounting documents prepared and kept by the other party belongs to a truster who is not a trustee is not acceptable because there is no legal or contractual basis. Thus, the Re-Appellant's argument that the other party has the right to demand the provision of the above accounting documents based on Article 28 of the Trust Act, Articles 29 and 33 of the Commercial Act, etc. is without merit, on the premise of the above argument.

However, according to the interpretation of the aforementioned relevant laws and regulations, in case where the re-appellants are entitled to exercise the right to peruse the documents related to the trust affairs of this case, such as accounting documents, based on Article 34(1) of the Trust Act, barring special circumstances such as the exercise of such right constitutes abuse of rights contrary to the good faith principle, the other party cannot refuse it. The provisions of Article 17-10 of the Trust Business Act may not affect the exercise of rights under Article 34(1) of the Trust Act different from the legislative purpose. However, the court below erred in holding that the Re-Appellants' assertion of rights based on Article 34(1) of the Trust Business Act may be rejected on the ground of the above "Trust Business

However, while the re-appellant is seeking to send the above accounting documents as the application for provisional disposition of this case, the purport of such application exceeds the scope of the right to claim inspection guaranteed by Article 34(1) of the Trust Act, and it cannot be deemed that there exists a vindication as to the right to claim preservation and the necessity of preservation for the right to claim provisional disposition of this case only with the allegations and supporting documents submitted by the re-appellant.

Therefore, the conclusion of the court below's rejection of the application for provisional disposition of this case is just, and the order of the court below did not err by misunderstanding the interpretation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as alleged in the grounds of reappeal.

Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed, and the costs of reappeals are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)