The judgment below

The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Any provisional disposition ordering a debtor's simple omission from among the provisional dispositions to determine a temporary position shall take effect when the judgment of such provisional disposition is notified to the debtor;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2010Ma985, Dec. 30, 2010). If an obligor violates a provisional disposition ordering a simple omission, which is not necessary to enforce it, the obligee may compel the obligor to perform the duty of omission by means of alternative enforcement or indirect enforcement.

In addition, where there is a difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a contract and the interpretation of the parties expressed in the disposition document is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and background leading up to such an agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60065 Decided May 27, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15816 Decided September 20, 2007, etc.). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts.

C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) concluded a real estate security trust agreement with the Defendant on November 26, 2010 with respect to the instant real estate owned by C (hereinafter “instant trust agreement”) and set the Plaintiff as the first priority beneficiary in order to secure additional loans, while extending the repayment period of loans under the instant credit transaction agreement with the Plaintiff.

Article 10 of the Special Agreement provides for the method of disposing of the real estate of this case, and Paragraph (1) provides that "where the truster and the preferential beneficiary agree to the extent that the interests of creditors on the trust real estate of this case are not undermined, the trustee may dispose of the trust property in a manner deemed appropriate, and Paragraph (4) provides that "the preferential beneficiary shall be entitled to dispose of the trust property