beta
Text
The judgment below
This part of the creditor subrogation claim is reversed, and this part of the case is to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the Defendant succeeded to the trustee’s status under a title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Joint Defendant E (hereinafter “E”), based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, etc.
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by failing
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2
A. By citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion, i.e., 1/2 of the real estate No. 1 of this case and 1/3 of the shares among the real estate No. 2 of this case, the plaintiff trusted each of the above shares to E, and the defendant, who is the part of the above shares, has been donated each of the above shares to the defendant. As the defendant was aware that each of the above shares was a trust property and received a gift, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant was actively involved in the act of breach of trust of E, on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant was actively involved in the act of breach of trust of E
B. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.
According to the records, ① the Plaintiff held title trust with R, E, and N each of the shares of 1/2 of the instant real estate 1/2 to N and E, ② on December 21, 2010, the real estate before the instant partition was divided into the instant real estate 2 and Gyeongbuk-gun, and among them, the amount of compensation for KRW 22,66,660 was paid to E, a title trustee, on December 23, 2010, as the pertinent T was acquired through consultation with public land; ③ E and its significance.