[소유권이전등기말소][미간행]
In case where a person who is named as a title trustee holds a certificate of registration for an object, whether the title trust relationship is recognized (affirmative with qualification)
Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 103 of the Civil Act / [title trust]
Supreme Court Decision 89Da14530 delivered on April 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1133) Supreme Court Decision 95Da3273 delivered on January 24, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 625) Supreme Court Decision 99Da41985 delivered on January 28, 200 (Gong200Sang, 569) (Gong2000Sang, 569) Supreme Court Decision 200Da6858 delivered on April 25, 200)
Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Daejeon High Court Decision 2006Na1761 Decided January 17, 2007
On February 18, 2007, the lawsuit relating to the 2/13 share of each real estate of this case was completed by inheritance of the defendant due to the death of the deceased non-party. The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. Ex officio determination
According to the records, the lawsuit of this case asserted that the deceased non-party was in title trust with the defendant who is the South-North of the real estate of this case, and claimed the plaintiff to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer to the plaintiff or the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registered in the name of the defendant with respect to each of the real estate of this case. The deceased died on February 18, 2007, when the case was pending in the Supreme Court due to the defendant's appeal, and the defendant inherited 2/13 of the real estate of this case. Thus, the part concerning the share of 2/13 of the real estate of this case, which is
2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal
In general, in cases where only the title holder of a real estate has been entrusted to another person, documents proving the same legal relationship as the certificate of completion of registration are held by the title truster, who is the actual owner. Thus, the fact that the person claiming as the title truster holds such legal relationship becomes a valuable material to support the title trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu14530, Apr. 24, 1990; 200Da6858, Apr. 25, 200). However, if there are special circumstances where the title trustee possesses such documents, the possession of such documents does not interfere with recognizing the establishment of the title trust relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da3273, Jan. 24, 1997; 9Da41985, Jan. 28, 200; 200Da6858, Apr. 25, 2000).
After recognizing the facts of the judgment, the court below acknowledged that the defendant, while living together with the above deceased, brought about a registration certificate of each real estate of this case as a result of the division and the defendant's assertion that the defendant, despite holding the registration certificate, held that the above deceased was a title trust for the defendant of the real estate of this case. In light of the above legal principles and the records, the decision of the court below is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, experience rules, or logic as argued in the Grounds for Appeal. The Supreme Court precedents cited in the Grounds for Appeal are not appropriate to apply to this case due to a different case.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, on February 18, 2007, the lawsuit as to the 2/13 portion of each real estate of this case is declared to have been terminated by inheritance of the defendant due to the death of the deceased non-party. The appeal as to the remaining portion is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)