2015Da5637 Registration of transfer of ownership

1. A;

2. B

person

Korea Land Trust Corporation

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Na34593 Decided December 9, 2014

June 11, 2015:

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

First, the defendant's first ground for appeal is examined.

1. Even after having entered into the second trust contract of this case, the lower court requested the Defendant, who is the beneficiary, the Military Mutual Aid Association and the trustee, to consent to the termination of the trust contract for the pertinent household, if the buyers of Jongno-gu Seoul and one parcel D building (hereinafter referred to as "D building") completely pay the sales price, and the Military Mutual Aid Association notified the Defendant that he consented to the termination of the trust contract when it is confirmed that the sales price was fully paid, and accordingly, the Military Mutual Aid Association notified the Defendant that he consented to the termination of the trust contract.

After recognizing the fact that the Defendant terminated the trust contract with respect to the pertinent household and completed the ownership transfer registration procedure to Memeria, in light of this, as to the households whose sale price is fully paid among the households selling D buildings in full among the households selling D buildings in this case, it shall be deemed that there was an agreement to terminate the trust contract with respect to the pertinent household for the buyer regardless of the achievement of the purpose of the second trust contract in this case. However, as the Plaintiffs paid the difference of KRW 9,356,00 according to the exchange contract in this case to Memera and paid KRW 9,356,00 according to the difference of KRW 117-1 in existing D buildings and provided documents necessary for completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to Non-130-1 and 130-2 (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate in this case"), it determined that the agreement to terminate the trust contract in this case was effective.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

A. According to the records, the Defendant, on September 28, 2007, notified 20 billion won to the 200 billion won of the loan of 10 billion won for a divided building of 877 billion won among D buildings, and then completed the registration of ownership transfer for 830 billion won for the reasons of the instant secondary trust contract, referring to the registration of ownership transfer for the 200 billion won of the trust contract between October 16, 2007 and May 31, 2008, 1944; 200 billion won of the loan agreement for each of the above 20 billion won of the trust agreement to the 200 billion won of the loan of 10 billion won of the transfer of real estate; 200 million won of the loan agreement to the 200 billion won of the loan agreement to the 20000 won of the loan agreement to the 10000 won of the loan agreement to the 20000 won of the trust agreement to the 1000th of the trust agreement.

B. If the factual basis is the same, the full payment of the sale price of the sales household that wants to terminate the trust contract is an essential preceding case in the Military Mutual-Aid Association to consent to termination of the trust contract for the pertinent household, and it seems that the termination of the trust contract is allowed only when the Military Mutual-Aid Association and the Defendant verify that the sale price of the pertinent household was fully paid. Nevertheless, the lower court presumed that the termination of the trust contract was made on condition that the agreement was concluded on conditional termination of the sale price under the condition that the sale price was fully paid in full by the Military Mutual-Aid Association, the Military Mutual-Aid Association, and the Defendant on the sole basis of repeated procedures of the termination of the trust contract as seen earlier, and determined that the Plaintiffs met the requirements necessary

C. In addition, even though the termination procedure of the trust contract had been repeated several times as seen earlier, it did not request the Military Mutual Aid Association to terminate the trust contract of this case by indicating that the sale price of each of the real estate of this case was completely paid-in, and the Military Mutual Aid Association made it clear that the Military Mutual Aid Association cannot agree to terminate the trust contract with regard to the unpaid generation of sale price; the Military Mutual Aid Association made it clear that Memer and the Defendant cannot agree to terminate the trust contract; the Military Mutual Aid Association consented to termination of the trust contract with regard to the unpaid generation of sale price under the preceding condition that the payment of the loan amount of KRW 3.2 billion should be repaid to the National Bank of Korea at the time of the second amendment of the trust contract; however, Memer failed to perform it; and Memer failed to request the Military Mutual Aid Association to terminate the trust contract with respect to the unpaid generation of sale price; and thereafter, Memer included the real estate of this case in the unpaid generation at the time of request by the Military Mutual Aid Association; and thereafter, it cannot be concluded that the trust contract of this case was terminated.

D. Ultimately, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of declaration of intention, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of declaration of intention.

3. Therefore, without examining the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal and the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for defendant

Justices Kim Jong-il