2015Da201725 For the confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit money

Daum Savings Bank, Inc.

C

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na2010463 Decided November 21, 2014

March 10, 2016

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. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A. A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”), B, F, D, and the Defendant jointly concluded a real estate disposal trust agreement (hereinafter referred to as “the first trust agreement”) with the trustor A et al. and the trustee with the real estate trust (hereinafter referred to as “new trust”) around March 29, 2002, where the trustor et al. and five parcels of land are jointly created and sold as a real estate complex.

B. On March 31, 2004, the interested parties, including the truster, trustee, priority beneficiary, and the plaintiff, etc., who are the pledgee of the right to benefit under the first trust agreement, were present, the defendant prepared a memorandum of agreement in which the defendant transfers the defendant's rights under the first trust agreement with A under the following conditions. The interested parties of the first trust agreement including the plaintiff, consented to the amendment of the terms of the second trust agreement with the following sub-paragraph (c).

(1) Paragraph (1) provides that “A shall deliver KRW 900 million to the Defendant the second beneficiary certificates issued and guaranteed in the life trust.”

(2) Paragraph (9) provides that the date of the payment of the certificate of beneficial rights shall be set on August 31, 2004, and where it is inevitable, for 4 months, A shall pay interest based on the amount of beneficiary certificates to the defendant. A concluded a trust contract for disposal of real estate (hereinafter referred to as the "second trust contract") with the first and fifth parcels of real estate as changed from May 25, 2004 to July 2005 after acquiring the ownership of the real estate of this case, which was changed through a subdivision and combination of lots of lots of land, from May 25, 2004 to July 2005.

(1) Article 5(1) of the Special Agreement provides that the first-class beneficiary shall be the representative G (4.3 billion won), the plaintiff (4.3 billion won), A (1.72 billion won), A (1.1 billion won), the second-class beneficiary shall be the representative G (1.1 billion won), A (1.60 billion won), the defendant (90 million won) from among Class B, the third-class beneficiary shall be the F and one other (9.5 billion won), and A.

(2) Article 2 (2) of the same Act provides that "The estimated amount of profit (4.3 billion won) from the representative of the clan B of the first beneficiary B shall be calculated by calculating the interest until August 30, 2004, and the actual amount of payment shall be calculated by calculating the interest on the daily basis at the time of liquidation (the monthly interest shall be KRW 34.4 million)."

(3) Article 3 (3) of the same Act provides that "The expected amount of profit (900 million won) of the defendant of the second beneficiary is calculated by the interest until August 30, 2004, and since August 31, 2004, the interest shall be calculated by calculating the interest on the remainder after the repayment of the expected amount of profit (900 million won) as the subsequent payment (the interest rate shall be determined by an agreement with H and the defendant (the conclusion of March 2004), and the interest rate shall be applied to the overdue interest rate under the land sale contract)."

D. On October 8, 2012, after the sale of the instant real estate, around December 31, 2012, according to the second trust agreement, the first,158,451,937 out of the sales proceeds and interest on part of the instant real estate shall be paid to the second beneficiary. Under the second trust agreement, the standard amount for distributing dividends shall be KRW 1.1 billion among Class B, and the amount for distributing dividends shall be KRW 2,328,737,704 (in accordance with Article 5(3) of the matters of the second trust agreement, the total amount of interest on the profit deposit amount of KRW 90 million and interest thereon from September 1, 2004 to January 8, 2013). Accordingly, each of Class B determined KRW 286,35,967,97,97,9715,975,97,9715,967,975,97,97,715,97, and each of the Defendant.

E. The Plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of dividends to the Defendant, and the new trust did not reach an agreement on the receipt of dividends among the second beneficiaries, and the new trust deposited KRW 1,158,451,937 around January 10, 2013, on the ground that the seizure and collection order, etc. of the dividend claims based on the second beneficial interest of A and C competes with each other (hereinafter “the instant deposit”).

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that, in full view of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, it is reasonable to view the amount of KRW 900 million revenue to the Defendant, who is the second-class beneficiary under the second trust agreement, as the Defendant’s profit limit, and that, if the instant deposit is divided in proportion to the amount of the said profit limit, the amount of KRW 401,293,808 (i.e., KRW 158,451,937 x KRW 1,158,451,937 x one billion x KRW 1.6 billion 6 billion

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

원심판결 이유 및 기록에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 위탁자인 A과 수탁자인 생보신탁 사이에 체결된 2차 신탁계약 특약사항 제5조는 이 사건 부동산의 처분에 따른 매각대금 등 수익금의 분배기준을 규정하고 있는 점, ② 위 특약사항 제5조 제2항은 '1순위 수익자 B종중의 수익 예상금액(43억 원)은 2004. 8. 30.까지의 이자를 계산한 금액이므로, 실제 지급할 금액은 수익금액 청산시기에 그 이자를 일할 계산하여 가감하기로 한다'고, 제3항은 '2순위 수익자 피고의 수익예상금액(9억 원)은 2004. 8. 30.까지의 이자를 계산한 금액이므로, 2004. 8. 31. 이후에는 수익 예상금액(9억 원)의 상환 후 잔여분에 대해 이자를 후불로서 일할 계산하여 피고에게 지급하기로 한다(이 사건 합의각서에 따른 것이며, 이자율은 토지 분양계약서상 연체이자율 적용함)' 각 규정하여, 우선수익자 중 B종중과 피고에 대하여는 이 사건 부동산이 처분되어 그 정산이 끝날 것으로 예상되는 2004. 8. 30.경까지 발생할 채권액을 일단 '수익예상금액'으로 한 다음 위 수익예상금액을 초과하여 발생하는 위 일자 이후의 이자채권에 관하여 별도로 구체적으로 규정하고 있는 점, ③ 2차 신탁계약 특약사항 제5조 제3항에 A이 이자 지급 의무자로 명시되어 있지 않은 한 수탁자인 생보신탁이 피고에게 위 제3항에 따른 이자를 지급해야 하는 것으로 봄이 상당하고, 2차 신탁계약에 의한 생보신탁의 수익금 지급과는 별도로 A이 피고에게 위 제3항에 따른 이자를 지급하여야 하는 것이라면 이를 2차 신탁계약에 특약사항으로 명시할 이유가 없어 보이는 점, ④ A과 피고 사이의 이 사건 합의각서 및 1차 신탁계약을 2차 신탁계약과 같은 내용, 특히 2 차 신탁계약 특약사항 제5조 제2, 3항과 같이 변경하는 것에 대한 1차 신탁계약의 이해관계인들의 동의서는 그 이해관계인들이 모두 모인 상태에서 상당한 진통 끝에 같은 날 작성되었고, 그에 따라 2차 신탁계약이 체결된 점, ⑤ 각 수익권증서에는 2차 신탁계약 특약사항 제5조 제1항에 1순위 수익자별로 기재된 금액을 합한 103억 2,000만 원 및 2순위 수익자별로 기재된 금액을 합한 30억 6,000만 원이 각 '수익한도금액'으로 되어 있으나, 수탁자인 생보신탁은 B종중뿐만 아니라 피고에 대하여도 이자까지 고려하여 배당금을 결정하였고, 실제 1순위 수익자 중 B종중이 2차 신탁계약 특약사항 제5조 제2항에 따라 수익 예상금액 43억 원을 초과한 금액을 배당받았음에도 원고 등은 이에 관하여 아무런 이의제기를 한 바 없는 점, ⑤ 이 사건 합의각서 제10항은 'A이 부담해야 할 세금 및 이자를 보증하기 위하여 생보신탁의 신탁계약서 수익권자 제3순위에 등재하여 보증 담보케 한다'고 규정하고 있는바, 여기서 말하는 이자는 이 사건 합의각서 제3항에서 말하는 A이 대신 부담하기로 한 피고의 은행에 대한 대출이자 채무를 말하는 것일 뿐 2차 신탁계약 특약사항 제5조 제3항과 관련이 있는 이 사건 합의각서 제9항에 따른 A의 피고에 대한 이자채무를 말하는 것은 아닌 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하면, 2차 신탁계약상 2순위 수익자인 피고에 대한 수익금액 9억 원은 2004. 8. 30.경까지의 수익 예상금액을 기재한 것으로서 위 수익 예상금액을 초과하여 발생하는 그 이후의 이자도 수익금으로 지급하기로 하였다고 봄이 상당하다.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the amount of revenue of 900 million won against the defendant, who is the second-class beneficiary under the second-class trust agreement, was the total amount of revenue of 900 million won by the defendant. This is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo

Justices Kim Gin-young

Chief Justice Lee Dong-won