The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Where a contractual party prepares in writing a certain content of a contract as a disposal document, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the contractual party’s expression shall be recognized. In a case where the objective meaning of the text is not clearly revealed, the content of the text and the motive and circumstance in which the contract was made, the purpose and true intent to be achieved by the contract by the parties, and transaction practices shall be comprehensively considered, and the contents of the contract shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, social common sense, and transaction norms so as to be consistent with the ideology of social justice and equity. In particular, in a case where a significant impact on the legal relations between the parties by interpreting a different interpretation from the objective meaning of the text, the contents of the text

(1) Article 21(1) of the former Trust Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10924, Jul. 25, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “The trust property under the foregoing Act shall be wholly and externally attributed to the trustee and its ownership shall not be reserved to the truster in the internal and external relationship with the truster.” In full view of the fact that the legislative intent of Article 21(1) of the former Trust Act lies in ensuring the independence of the trust property in order to smoothly achieve the purpose of the trust, the trustee shall be entitled to compulsory execution or auction against the trust property under the proviso of Article 21(1) of the former Trust Act.