[2] Whether a title trustee of real estate constitutes a fraudulent act where a title trustee of real estate has completed a registration of ownership transfer of the trusted real estate as a repayment obligation based on trust act (negative)

[3] The case holding that the act of donation to the wife of real estate, which is the sole property, does not constitute a fraudulent act by recognizing that the wife's return of the property held in title trust to the husband with the wife's burden of acquisition

The court below held that since the non-party 1 was insolvent by completing the registration of transfer of ownership based on donation in the future of the defendant with respect to the real estate of this case, which is its sole property, the above donation was a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, who is the creditor. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the real estate of this case was acquired at his own effort and cost and was trusted in trust to the non-party 1, who is the husband, and thus, does not constitute a fraudulent act, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge such assertion.

2. The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

The presumption is not reversed solely on the fact that one side of the married couple's property acquired in his own name during the marriage is presumed to be the special property of the nominal owner, and that the other side has cooperation or had contributed to the acquisition of the property. However, if the other party proves that the other party has actually acquired the property by bearing the price for the said property, the presumption is reversed, and the other party who bears the price for the said property has been in title trust with the nominal owner for convenience (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da4278, Feb. 3, 1995; 2000Da45723, Dec. 12, 200). Meanwhile, the act of a real estate trustee to make a registration of ownership transfer by performing a duty of return based on the trust act does not constitute a fraudulent act as a performance of existing obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da35884, Aug. 24, 2001).

Even according to the facts duly established by the court below, since the defendant and the non-party 1 were married as married couple on March 22, 1983, and they were two children. The non-party 1 moved to work several times after marriage, operated independently from 1998, but the defendant did not take proper care of his family within the marriage period, and he did not take care of his family with the non-party 2, who was the plaintiff from July 1991, and did not take care of his family under the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the defendant transferred the real estate under the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the non-party 1.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the real estate in this case is not a fraudulent act because the defendant trusted the real estate in trust with the non-party 1, the husband. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts in violation of the rules of evidence and misapprehending the legal principles as to the title trust relationship between the husband and the non-party 1, and it has affected the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)