1. As to the first ground for reappeal

The ground of reappeal in this part is just an error with the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which belong to the full power of the fact-finding court, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate

2. As to the second ground for reappeal

The distinction between whether a title trust agreement is a so-called three-party registered title trust or a contract title trust is determined by the parties to the contract. However, if the purchaser intended to purchase real estate through another person’s name, the title trust relationship at this time is merely an internal relationship among them, and even if the seller, who is the other party to the contract, was aware of such title trust relationship, barring special circumstances such as having entered into a contract with the intent to directly bring about the legal effect of the contract to the title trustor rather than the title trustee, such title trust relationship should be deemed as a contract title trust.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below and the record, the other party and the claimant-party 1 bear one half of the purchase price, and purchase the land of this case as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and trust the other party 1/2 shares in the other party 1/2 shares to the non-party 1. On September 11, 1995, the sales contract of this case was concluded between the seller 1 and the non-party 2, and on April 20, 1996, the registration for the transfer of ownership was made under one non-party 1 in the non-party 1's name.

However, the lower court acknowledged that, at the time of the payment of intermediate payment pursuant to the instant sales contract to Nonparty 2, Nonparty 1 had the remainder of the money and the intermediate payment to Nonparty 2 was entitled to the other party, and that Nonparty 2 was aware of the fact that Nonparty 1 and the other party were to purchase the instant land in the process of the execution of the instant sales contract, the lower court determined that the title trust relationship between the other party to the 1/2 share out of the instant land and Nonparty 1 constitutes a three-party registered title trust.

However, the above facts based on the judgment of the court below are merely on the fact that the non-party 2, the seller of the land of this case, knew that there was a title trust agreement between the other party and the non-party 1 with respect to shares 1/2 of the land of this case in the process of the execution of the contract of this case. Thus, it is insufficient to accept the special circumstances, such as not the counter-party 1, the contracting party, but the title truster, with the intention to directly contribute to the legal effect of the contract of this case, and it is difficult to find any data to acknowledge any special circumstances otherwise in the record. Accordingly, it is sufficient to view that the title trust relationship with regard to shares 1/2 of the land of this case between the other party and the non-party 1 constitutes a title trust

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the title trust relationship between the other party and the Nonparty 1 constitutes three-party registered title trust solely based on its recognition. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on title trust, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for re-appeal assigning this error are with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the order of the court 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 Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)