[2] In a case where a partner did not make a joint ownership registration on a real estate purchased for a joint project and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of one of the partners, whether the partnership should be deemed to have held a title trust with the partner (affirmative), and whether the trust real estate itself can become a partnership property (negative)

[2] In a case where a partnership member made a registration of ownership transfer under one of the partnership members without making a joint ownership registration on real estate purchased for a joint project, the partnership shall be deemed to have held a title trust with the partnership member. The ownership of real estate held in title by the partnership member is null and void, and the partnership property is reverted to the seller, and the title trustee where it is valid. In this case, the partnership property is the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer or the right to return unjust enrichment, and

1. Determination on the appeal against Defendant 1 and Defendant 3

An appeal is to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself in favor of himself/herself. An appeal against a judgment in favor of the entire winning court is not allowed since there is no object or interest to file an appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da61378 delivered on June 14, 2002, etc.).

According to the records, since the court below dismissed the appeal by the defendant 1 and the defendant 3, the appeal filed by the plaintiff in favor of the defendant 1 and the defendant 3 is unlawful as there is no benefit of appeal.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal against Defendant 2

A. According to Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, a title trustee’s title trust agreement on real estate and any change in real rights thereto are null and void. However, if a title trustee becomes one of the parties to a contract to acquire a real right on real estate and the other party did not know that a title trust agreement existed, the title trustee would acquire the full ownership of the real estate and assume the title trustee’s obligation to return unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da66922, Jan. 28,

In cases where a cooperative member without making a joint ownership registration on real estate purchased for a joint project and under one of the cooperative members, a cooperative should be deemed to have held title trust with the cooperative members (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da25256, Apr. 13, 2006, etc.). In cases where a cooperative’s ownership of real estate held in title by a cooperative member becomes null and void in accordance with the above legal principles, the ownership of real estate held in title trust shall belong to the seller, and where such change in real right becomes null and void, it shall belong to the title trustee. In such cases, the cooperative’s property is the right to claim for ownership

B. (1) The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking registration of transfer of real estate shares on the grounds of termination of a partnership relationship on the following grounds.

The Plaintiff, the Nonparty, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 established an association aimed at investing in and developing real estate, and purchased forest land in Gwangju City ( Address 1 omitted), and prepared a sales contract with Defendant 2 as the buyer, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of Defendant 2 (hereinafter the above forest was divided into address 2 omitted) (hereinafter the above forest was divided into address 3 omitted). The Plaintiff withdrawn from the association by declaring that the association agreement will be terminated. Accordingly, the ownership of the forest of this case was reverted to the partnership of the remaining members. The Plaintiff should calculate the ownership of the forest of this case based on the partnership property status as at the time of withdrawal pursuant to Article 719 of the Civil Act with the remaining members and the Plaintiff could not seek implementation of the registration procedure for ownership transfer as to the portion of the forest of this case, which is the property of the association.

(2) Examining the facts acknowledged by the lower court in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, the following can be seen.

Since a partnership formed by the Plaintiff and Defendant 2, etc. purchased the forest of this case and completed the registration of transfer in Defendant 2’s future, the partnership should be deemed to have held title trust with Defendant 2. In this case, the partnership’s property is a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price against Defendant 2 and the forest of this case, which is a trust real estate, is not a partnership’s property. Therefore, even if the partnership relationship is terminated due to the Plaintiff’s withdrawal or dissolution, the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for the registration of transfer on the premise that the forest

Although the lower court determined that the instant forest land is a partnership property, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of title trust and ownership change of the trusted real estate, the lower court’s conclusion is justifiable that the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for the registration of transfer of shares in the instant forest land. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the termination of partnership relations and the interpretation of Article 719 of the Civil Act, contrary

3. Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 is dismissed in entirety as it is unlawful. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant 2 is dismissed as it is without merit, 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.

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)