Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Noh Jae-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 decided May 1, 201

Barun Co., Ltd.

Law Firm Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Spotsan, Attorney Kim Jong-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

August 12, 2009

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2008Da41212 Decided February 18, 2009

1. Revocation of part concerning Defendant stock companies and global money among judgment in the first instance;

Defendant Co., Ltd and Magman Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Plaintiff 1, as to real estate 1.0 on August 16, 2007, each transfer registration procedure for real estate 2.0 on November 26, 2007 is implemented against Plaintiff 2.

2. The plaintiffs' appeal against the defendant KB real estate trust company and the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant NB real estate successor is dismissed in entirety.

3. The costs of total litigation incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant corporation and the defendant corporation are borne by the defendant corporation and the defendant corporation, and the costs of appeal arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant corporation for real estate trust and the total costs of litigation arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant corporation for real estate successor and the defendant corporation for real estate successor are borne by the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant KF real estate trust company (hereinafter the defendant trust company) shall revoke the judgment of the court of first instance. The defendant KF real estate trust company (hereinafter the defendant trust company) shall carry out the registration procedure of ownership transfer on the ground of the plaintiff 1's partial termination of the trust on the date of delivery of the complaint of this case as of February 26, 2007 as to the real estate trust contract of this case as of February 26, 2007, and the registration procedure of ownership transfer transfer on the ground of the plaintiff 2's partial termination of the trust on the date of delivery of the complaint of this case as of March 7, 2008 as to the real estate trust contract of this case as of February 26, 2007 as to the real estate of this case as of March 7, 2008 as well as the registration procedure of ownership transfer on the ground of the plaintiff 2's partial termination of the trust on the date of delivery of the complaint of this case to the trust company of this case as of this case.

1. Basic facts

The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is as follows. The court's explanation is as follows: "Defendant 2" in Section 5 of the first instance court's decision, "Defendant 2" in Section 2 of the fifth instance court's decision, and as it is stated in Section 5 of the fifth instance judgment's reasoning, in addition to adding "the next......" and "the grounds for recognition" in Section 5 of the fifth instance decision, it is identical to the corresponding part

(j) On February 3, 2009, when concluding a contract for business takeover and transfer with the succeeding intervenor of the defendant corporation, the defendant corporation transferred to the succeeding intervenor of the defendant corporation all the status and rights and duties related to the civil litigation cases that have occurred or occurred in connection with the construction sector as now being performed, and determined that the defendant corporation succeeded to the construction industry, and that the defendant corporation succeeded to the business.

[Based on Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 7; Gap evidence Nos. 4; Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 8; Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3; Eul evidence No. 1-2; Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 3; Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 4-3; the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant's executor

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant executor is obligated to perform each of the transfer registration procedures on November 26, 2007 with respect to the real estate on August 16, 2007 as stated in the attached Form 1. The real estate on August 16, 2007 to the plaintiff 2.

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant trust company and the trial corporation

The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is that in order to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration of each real estate listed in the separate sheet against the defendant's executor (hereinafter "each real estate of this case"), the plaintiff has a duty to complete the registration procedure of ownership transfer of each real estate of this case on the ground of each termination, and the defendant trust company has a duty to express its consent to the defendant trust company about the declaration of partial termination of the trust of this case on the ground of each termination, and the defendant trust company has a duty to make the defendant trust company's agreement on the registration of ownership transfer of each real estate of this case and the "the defendant of 7 Do 12", "the trust company, the defendant of 8 Do 12", "the defendant of 8 Do 2", "the defendant trust company of this case", and the "the defendant of 8 Do 28 Do 8 12" as stated in the main sentence of Article 4 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant executor against the defendant company are accepted in its reasoning, and the claims against the defendant trust company and the defendant company for the trial work are dismissed due to the lack of reason. Since the claims against the defendant executor in the judgment of the court of first instance are unfair with different conclusions, all appeals by the plaintiffs are accepted, and the parts concerning the defendant trust company and the trial work are justified with the conclusion, and all appeals by the plaintiffs against the defendant trust company and the intervenor succeeding to the defendant corporation are dismissed.

[Attachment]

Judges Sick Modle (Presiding Judge)