[2] In a case where the tax authority imposed property tax on the title trustee who became the owner of the pertinent real estate on the public register under a three-party registered title trust and the title trustee paid property tax, whether the title truster or his/her heir has the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment on the amount equivalent to property tax

[2] Even if the tax authority imposed property tax on the title trustee who became the owner of the pertinent real estate on the public registry according to a three-party registered title trust and the title trustee paid property tax accordingly, it is difficult to deem that the title trustee has a right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against the title truster or his/her heir. The detailed reasons are as follows.

(1) The reason why a title trustee paid property tax is that the title trustee was registered as an owner on the public registry of the relevant real estate and the property tax was imposed on the title trustee. It is difficult to deem that the title truster had a benefit exempted from the liability to pay property tax on the ground that the title trustee paid property tax imposed on him/her. The title truster still bears the responsibility to pay property tax on the relevant real estate.

② Unless any special circumstance exists, a disposition imposing property tax on a title trustee is valid unless it is revoked as illegal. It is difficult to deem that the tax authority imposed property tax on the title trustee and paid it to the title trustee, and it is the case where the title truster was benefited or incurred damage to the title trustee, as prescribed by Article 741 of the Civil Act.

③ A title trustee may receive a refund of property tax paid within a certain period from the date he/she becomes aware that the judgment on the imposition of property tax imposed on him/her through an appeal litigation becomes final and conclusive or that the judgment on the ownership of the pertinent real estate becomes final and conclusive. Therefore, even if a title trustee is unable to contest the imposition of property tax (uninfluence) and the damages arising from the payment of property tax were incurred due to an illegal cause, and no recovery is possible, such damages may be deemed due to the lapse of the objection period or the period for filing a request for correction, etc. against the relevant tax assessment. Even if the tax authority did not impose the property tax on the relevant real estate, which would result in the title truster’s failure to pay the property tax on the relevant real estate, this would be limited to the de facto benefit or anti-private interest. The issue of return of property tax paid by the title trustee or the factual benefit of the title truster is a matter that should be resolved in relation to the relevant relationship between the title trustee and the tax authority, the tax authority, and the title trustee and the tax authority.

④ If a title trustee’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against a title truster is recognized, a complicated problem may arise depending on whether a tax disposition is revoked. If the title trustee is deemed to have the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against the title truster by paying property tax on real estate held in title trust, such circumstance does not obstruct the title trustee’s proceeding of an appeal seeking revocation of a tax disposition against the tax authority or filing a claim for rectification due to the subsequent reasons. If so, the title trustee is able to provide double remedy

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Ground of appeal No.1

1) “A person who actually owns property” under Article 107(1) of the Local Tax Act refers to a person who owns the real ownership of the pertinent land or property, regardless of whether the person is registered as the owner on the public register (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du4964, Dec. 13, 2012). In the case of a three-party registered title trust where a title truster takes over real estate from the owner under a title trust agreement with the title trustee and conducts the registration of ownership transfer of the relevant real estate under the name of the title trustee immediately from the owner, the title truster’s status as the purchaser is not fundamentally different from the buyer’s status under a general sales contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Du4310, Mar. 22, 2018). If the title truster concluded a sales contract on real estate and paid the purchase price in full, the title truster is liable to pay the property tax, unless there are special circumstances.

However, even if the tax authority imposed property tax on the title trustee who became the owner of the pertinent real estate on the public registry according to a three-party registered title trust and accordingly paid property tax by the title trustee, it is difficult to view that the title trustee has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the title truster or his/her heir. The detailed reasons are as follows.

A) The fact that the title trustee paid property tax is the fact that the title trustee was registered as an owner registered on the pertinent real estate and the property tax was imposed on the title trustee. It is difficult to deem that the title truster had obtained the benefit of exempting the title truster from liability for property tax on the ground that the title trustee paid property tax imposed on him/her. The title truster still bears the responsibility for property tax on the pertinent real estate.

B) Unless the imposition of property tax on the title trustee is revoked as illegal, barring any special circumstance, it is deemed that the tax authority imposed property tax on the title trustee and paid it by the title trustee is difficult to deem that the title truster was benefited, or incurred damage to the title trustee, under Article 741 of the Civil Act.

C) A title trustee may receive a refund of property tax paid within a certain period from the date he/she becomes aware that the judgment on the imposition of property tax imposed on him/her is final and conclusive or that the judgment on the ownership of the pertinent real estate becomes final and conclusive through an appeal litigation. Therefore, even if a title trustee is unable to contest the imposition of property tax (uninfluence) and the damages arising from the payment of property tax were incurred due to an illegal cause, and no recovery is possible, such damages may be deemed due to the lapse of the objection period against the tax disposition or the period for filing a request for correction. Even if the tax authority did not impose the property tax on the relevant real estate, which would result in the title truster’s failure to pay the property tax on the relevant real estate, this would be equivalent to the de facto benefit or anti-private interest. The issue of return of property tax paid by the title trustee or the factual benefit of the title truster is a matter to be resolved in relation to the title trustee and the tax authority, respectively. It is difficult to recognize the need for any other remedy to the title trustee.

D) If a title trustee’s right to claim a return of unjust enrichment against a title trustee is recognized, a complicated problem may arise depending on whether a tax disposition is revoked. If a title trustee is deemed to have the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment against a title trustee by paying property tax on a title trust real estate, such circumstance does not obstruct the title trustee’s proceeding of an appeal seeking the revocation of a tax disposition against a tax authority, or filing a claim for correction based on a subsequent reasons. If so, the title trustee is able to provide double remedy

2) The reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following facts.

A) From 1989 to 1989, the deceased Nonparty (hereinafter “the deceased”) established and operated a comprehensive team of ○○○ Institute on the ground of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government (number 1 omitted). Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the deceased’s children, Plaintiff 3 are the deceased’s spouse, and the Defendant is the birth of the deceased.

B) From around 1989 to February 17, 2004, the Deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant according to a three-party registered title trust agreement between the Deceased and the Defendant, respectively, with respect to four parcels of land before and after the division (hereinafter “△△△△ four parcels of land”), which are part of the total size of 697.5 square meters (number 3 omitted) and the total size of 783.7 square meters, pursuant to the contract between the Deceased and the Defendant, and with respect to the remaining parts of the land (hereinafter “the part of the land”).

C) The Deceased died on August 9, 2012, and the Plaintiffs inherited the deceased’s property.

D) After the deceased’s death, the Defendant paid the property tax on the said land from 2012 to 2016.

E) The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant prior to the filing of the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the ownership transfer registration for the above land, against the △△ four parcels, and won the remainder of the land.

F) In the instant case, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant return 4 parcels of △△△△ and various acquisition costs, including acquisition tax, to unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment following the payment of property tax on the remaining parcels of land, etc. offset the Plaintiffs’ right

3) The lower court rejected the Defendant’s offset claim, and determined that it is merely a assumptive claimant seeking the registration of ownership transfer against the seller who is the owner of the remaining part of the land, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs are liable to

In light of the above legal principles, although the plaintiffs who inherited the status of the deceased as the title truster had the obligation to pay property tax as the de facto owner of the remaining part of the land, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the person liable for payment of property tax in the third party registered title trust, but the conclusion of rejecting the offset claim based on the defendant's right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the property tax is justifiable. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles

B. Ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

For the reasons indicated in its holding, it is reasonable to view that the sales price of the land sales contract (number 2 omitted) prior to the annexation of △△ four parcels, was determined in a lump sum without distinguishing between land and buildings, and that most of the sales price was determined by reflecting the value of the land. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment that was already extinguished on the ground that the Defendant’s removal of the building owned by the Defendant could not be seen as ex post facto extinction of the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment on the ground that the Defendant’s removal of the building owned by the Defendant

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on unjust enrichment, etc., which affected the conclusion

2. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, acknowledged the fact that the Defendant retired while serving in the comprehensive team of the ○○○ Private Teaching Institute operated by the Deceased, and determined that, even if there was no evidence that the Deceased already paid retirement allowance to the Defendant or the Defendant renounced his retirement allowance claim, and even if the extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s retirement allowance claim has expired, the lower court could offset the said retirement allowance claim by the automatic claim pursuant to Article 495 of the Civil Act, insofar as the Plaintiffs, who

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the determination of the existence of retirement allowance claims or the amount of claims, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules,

B. Ground of appeal No. 3

The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion in this part of the grounds of appeal is that the lower court’s determination that did not recognize the Plaintiff’s fees paid for acquiring the land and the ground buildings prior to the merger regarding the subject matter of the claim for return of unjust enrichment alleged to the Defendant was erroneous. However, this is not a legitimate ground of appeal, since it is erroneous in the selection of evidence or fact-finding which belongs

In light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subject of claim

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Seon-soo (Presiding Justice)