[소유권이전등기등][공2005.6.1.(227),826]
Where a person who intends to purchase real estate in the real estate auction procedure agrees to obtain a decision of permission for sale under another person's name while he/she bears the purchase price, and thus the permission for sale has been granted, whether a title trust relationship is established between the person who acquires the ownership of the real estate for auction purpose (i.e., the title holder)
Where a person who intends to purchase real estate in the real estate auction procedure has agreed with another person to obtain a decision of permission for sale in his/her own name and to obtain a decision of permission for sale under another person's name, and permission for sale has been granted in the auction procedure, the person who is held the status of the purchaser is the title holder, and the ownership of real estate for the purpose of auction is deemed to have been acquired by the title holder regardless of who is the person who actually bears the purchase price. In such cases
Article 103 of the Civil Act / [title trust] Article 135 of the Civil Execution Act
Supreme Court Decision 99Da15863, 15870 Decided April 7, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1138) Supreme Court Decision 99Da19698 Decided September 25, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2315) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da7011, 7028 (Gong2002Sang, 862) Decided September 10, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 862) Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5351 Decided December 23, 2004 (Gong2002Ha, 2447)
Plaintiff
Defendant
Incheon District Court Decision 2004Na4034 delivered on December 2, 2004
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.
1. Based on the evidence of employment, the court below rejected the agreement between the defendant's father 1 and the defendant around October 20, 1998 that the plaintiff's father 2 and the plaintiff should jointly bear the successful bid price and the tax and public charges, and then the defendant should thereafter be awarded a successful bid in the name of the defendant and then transfer one half of the share to the plaintiff. The non-party 1 was awarded the first real estate in the name of the defendant on November 26, 1998 under the above agreement and completed the registration of transfer under the name of the defendant on November 28, 1998. The non-party 1 and the defendant were ordered to purchase the above real estate under the name of the plaintiff's father 2 and the plaintiff on March 15, 199, the non-party 2 was awarded a successful bid in the name of the defendant and the non-party 1's bid price and the non-party 2's share transfer of the above real estate to the plaintiff on the title trust of the plaintiff 1 and the above real estate.
2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.
Where a person who intends to purchase real estate in the real estate auction procedure agrees with another person to obtain a decision of permission for sale in his/her own name and to obtain the permission for sale under another person's name, the person who takes the position of the purchaser in the auction procedure is the title holder, and thus the ownership of the real estate for the purpose of auction is acquired by the title holder regardless of who is the person who actually bears the purchase price. In such cases, a title trust relationship is established between the person who bears the purchase price and the person who lends the name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du5351, Sept. 10, 200; 2004Do6908, Dec. 23, 2004).
As duly determined by the court below, if the plaintiff and the defendant shared the successful bid price and the tax and public imposts, and registered the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case in the name of the defendant in the name of the defendant, and the defendant agreed to transfer one half of the above real estate to the plaintiff at the later convenient time, in light of the above legal principles, it shall be deemed that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant about one half of the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is the agreement on title trust as to one half of the above real estate at the night. Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the above agreement is null and void pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the Registration of Real Estate under the Name of the actual owner of the Real Estate under the name of the defendant, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the title trust relationship in the case of purchasing real estate under another person's name, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The court below cited the judgment below, which is a separate precedent of this case, which requires the settlement of monetary claims against the purchaser.
3. 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 Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)