According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below established the following facts based on the following facts: the plaintiff purchased or sold real estate through the introduction of the intervenor who operates the real estate opening business and provided funds for purchasing real estate to the intervenor without completely leaving profit profits; the plaintiff purchased real estate in the name of the plaintiff himself or other person designated by the plaintiff, or other person recommended by the intervenor under the plaintiff's consent, in physical coloring real estate with a view to remaining resale profits; and then resell it again under the plaintiff's consent until the date of creation of resale; the real estate in this case was transferred to the plaintiff as part of delegated affairs by the intervenor; the real estate in this case was also purchased in the name of the intervenor on Nov. 5, 197, with the funds (2 million won) deposited in advance by the plaintiff to the intervenor, and the real estate was transferred to the plaintiff by the plaintiff (14.5 million won). However, if the plaintiff acquired the real estate in this case under the name of the non-party 1's joint purchaser and the real estate acquired by the plaintiff's joint ownership transfer registration under the above real estate title transfer registration under the plaintiff's name.

In addition, the court below reasoned that the plaintiff was not directly involved in the conclusion of the sales contract or the payment of the purchase price in purchasing the real estate from the above non-party 1, and provided the purchase fund to the intervenor inside the same manner, and there is no special evidence that the intervenor concluded a direct sales contract under the plaintiff's delegation of purchase and paid the purchase price in his name, while there is an agreement with the intervenor to immediately transfer the ownership of the real estate purchased as part of the above delegation of affairs by the intervenor to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's obligation to transfer the right acquired as a result of the above sale to the plaintiff according to the terms of delegation cannot be deemed to directly belong to the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff's right acquired as a result of the above sale of the real estate to the above non-party 2 cannot be deemed to be attributed to the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff's internal consent was made at the time of the trust to the defendant and the above non-party 2, the plaintiff's agent and the above non-party 2 did not request the plaintiff's title truster's transfer registration agreement to the above real estate due to the plaintiff's agent or the above termination of title trust agreement.

However, even if the relationship between the plaintiff and the intervenor is considered to be a delegation relationship based on the facts admitted by the court below, this is only applicable to the case where the intervenor is an internal person, so that the intervenor can act externally as a delegating person, or as a legal act or fact-finding person. Although the intervenor purchases the real estate in his name, it is only purchased from the plaintiff's funds for the plaintiff (in order to own it as the plaintiff). In addition, when the registration is completed due to unavoidable circumstances as stated in its holding, if the intervenor conducts registration affairs under a title trust under the name of two persons as stated in its holding that the intervenor's living together with the intervenor is not registered in his own name due to inevitable reasons as stated in its holding, and if the intervenor conducts registration affairs under a title trust under the name of two persons as stated in its reasoning, the intervenor shall be deemed to have conducted such registration affairs as the plaintiff's representative or the company as the actual right holder of the purchased real estate. Accordingly, the plaintiff may immediately cancel the title trust with respect

According to the records, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff purchased and reselled a lot of real estate including the real estate in this case on the ground of the intervenor, who is the referral business operator, and therefore there is room to view that the intervenor also includes the plaintiff's assertion that he dealt with the above purchase business as the plaintiff's representative or the solicitor, and if it is not clear, the court should have tried to make it clear

Nevertheless, while recognizing the facts as indicated in its holding, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot terminate the title trust unless the Intervenor subrogates the intervenor. Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on representation or title trust, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the allegations of the parties, which constitutes grounds for reversal under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings, etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)