logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014.01.23 2012다57866
부당이득반환
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Trust under the Trust Act requires a trustee to manage and dispose of the relevant property right for the purpose of trust by transferring a specific property right to a trustee or disposing of it (Article 1(2) of the Trust Act). Thus, if the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the future of the trustee in a real estate trust, the ownership is entirely transferred to the trustee, and the ownership is not reserved from the internal relationship with the truster to the truster.

As such, as the validity of the trust, the trustee has the right to manage the trust property domestically and externally as a result of the transfer of the ownership of the trust property to the trustee, but the trustee is merely a burden of restrictions on the management of the trust property within the scope of the purpose of the trust.

On April 12, 2002, the following circumstances are revealed in full view of the reasoning of the lower judgment, including the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, as well as the evidence duly admitted.

Around January 5, 2005, the development of the Sung-friendly Industry (hereinafter referred to as the “Ma-friendly Industry Development”) sold 122 units of apartment units unsold in lots among the e-learning units at two weeks, where the development of Sung-friendly Industry was newly built on the K&A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Ma-S&C”) and the development of Sung-S&D Co., Ltd. was transferred from the promotion mutual savings bank (hereinafter referred to as the “promotion mutual savings bank”) around that time in order to pay for the purchase price for the development of Sung-S& industry.

B. On March 30, 2005, gender-friendly industry development is a promotion mutual savings bank with respect to the above 122 apartment units (hereinafter “instant trust real estate”) between the Plaintiff and the company engaging in real estate-backed trust business.

arrow