본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울남부지방법원 2016.09.01 2015가단230864

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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


1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant's real estate stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the instant officetel") without any legal ground.

(2) The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is not the owner of the instant officetel and is not the owner of the instant officetel, and the defendant has no right to seek delivery of the instant officetel on behalf of the trustee, who is the actual owner of the instant officetel and interferes with the exercise of ownership.

B. 1) Determination 1) In a real estate trust where a trustee completes the registration of transfer of ownership in the future, ownership is entirely transferred to the trustee, and ownership is not reserved in the internal and external relationship with the truster. As such, the trustee has the right to manage the trust property inside and outside the country as a result of the transfer of ownership to the trustee. However, the trustee merely bears the restriction to manage the trust property as prescribed in the trust contract within the scope of the purpose of the trust. As to the trust property, the trustee is deemed to have the exclusive right to dispose of and manage the trust property. It goes against the purport of the Trust Act or the intrinsic nature of the trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Da8938, Aug. 13, 2015; 200Ma297, Jan. 27, 2003).