Appellant 1 Co., Ltd. and 1 (Law Firm Jeonn, Attorneys Kim Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the appellant-appellant)

Korea Land Trust Corporation

Seoul Central District Court Order 2005Kahap4278 dated January 25, 2006

1. The appeal of this case is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The respondent shall send to the applicant the books and documents in the attached list within four weeks.

1. cite the decision of the court of first instance;

The reasons why the court should explain this case are as follows. The applicant's "the second third party of the decision of the court of first instance" added "the right to receive evidentiary documents for the preservation of commercial books, etc. of merchants under Articles 29 and 33 of the Commercial Code" to "the right to receive evidentiary documents for the preservation of commercial books, etc. of merchants under Article 29 and Article 33 of the Commercial Code" and the reasons why the decision of the court of first instance is added are as stated in the column of reasons for the decision of the court of first instance

2. Additional determination

The applicants asserts that Article 17-10 of the Trust Business Act does not apply to real estate trusts, such as this case, because Article 17-10 of the Trust Business Act provides for money, securities, and monetary claims trust with Articles 17 through 17-9 of the same Act.

However, Article 17-10 of the Trust Business Act is only applicable to "beneficiary" and "trust company" and does not limit the application to the beneficiary of money, securities, monetary claims trust and trust companies.

In addition, the purport that the Trust Business Act limits the right to request access to accounting books compared to the Trust Business Act is that the trust company should submit monthly business reports and business reports for each business year to the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service (Article 19 of the Trust Business Act), the settlement of accounts for the trust business is conducted in accordance with the standards set by the Financial Supervisory Commission (Article 20(2) of the Trust Business Act), and in particular, the real estate trust company shall strictly manage and supervise the trust company for the protection of beneficiaries (Article 27(1) of the Trust Business Act), such as “matters concerning organization and human resources,” “matters concerning financial and profit and loss,” “matters concerning the financing and management of funds,” and “matters concerning the progress of the real estate trust business” (Article 27(1) of the Trust Business Supervision Regulations), so that the Financial Supervisory Commission strictly manages and supervises the trust company for the protection of beneficiaries (Article 24-2 of the Trust Business Act), and there is no need to monitor the trustee of the beneficiary (Article 24(2) of the Trust Business Act).

Therefore, the above argument by the applicants that the real estate trust is not applicable to the real estate trust, such as this case, cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong-il (Presiding Judge)