Around July 21, 2009, the Defendant embezzled the instant real estate to G by selling it for the victim after completing the title transfer registration in the name of the Defendant at the office of a certified judicial scrivener in Do, Jeonnam-do, Jeonnam-do., around July 21, 2009, the Defendant: (a) obtained from the victim E a title trust the F. 5m2 and the above ground house 82.60m2; and (b) the affiliated company 19.70m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (c) sold the instant real estate to G for the sake of the victim, around April 18, 201.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Each police statement of E and H;

1. All the registered matters (building and land);

1. A real estate sales contract;

1. Application of a receipt (record No. 26 pages) statute;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion of the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the criminal facts

1. Although the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of the instant real estate, the instant title trust constitutes a so-called contract title trust, the title trustee is not in the position of “a person who keeps another’s property” against the title truster, and thus, does not constitute embezzlement.

2. Determination

A. The distinction between whether a title trust agreement is a three-party registered title trust or a contract title trust is a matter of determining who the contracting party becomes a title trustee.

Even if a contracting party can be seen as a title truster, it will be a three-party registered title trust.

Therefore, if it is recognized that a contract is concluded with the intention of directly reverting the legal effect of the contract to the title truster rather than the title trustee, the title truster is the contracting party. Therefore, the title trust relationship in this case should be deemed as a three-party registered title trust.

Supreme Court Decision 2010Da52799 Decided October 28, 2010