1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for modification and addition as follows.

(In full view of all the evidence presented at the Plaintiff’s assertion and the trial, it is reasonable to make the first instance judgment). The first instance judgment’s “deposit” was made in the fourth seven parallels of the first instance judgment, and the amendment was made to “deposit” (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

The 7th sentence of the first instance judgment shall be amended to "no".

After the 8th five main text of the judgment of the first instance, the instant trust agreement is revised as follows: “In light of the fact that (a) B, etc. made efforts to normalize the sale of the instant building by way of the said loan after entering into the instant trust agreement, such as provisional attachment, provisional injunction, and collateral security, established on the instant land and building, and the execution of the funds was transparent through the account in the name of a certified judicial scrivener, it is reasonable to deem that the instant trust agreement was concluded under the judgment that the repayment of debts to the provisional attachment, provisional injunction creditors, etc. and the completion of the new construction and sale of the instant building would be beneficial to both the general creditors, the corporation, and the buyer, including the Plaintiff, and that the execution of the funds was transparent through the account in the name of a certified judicial scrivener.

After the 8th 12th 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “(the Plaintiff used part of the loan to repay to creditors who are unrelated to the new construction project of this case.” However, even if not the creditors related to the new construction project of this case, it is difficult to recognize that there was an intention of deception against B, etc. on the ground of its repayment, as long as repayment was made against creditors who interfere with the sale, etc. of the building of this case by seizing the land or the building of this case, etc.

2. Conclusion