1. Where a title truster and a title trustee entered into a so-called contract title trust agreement with the owner who is aware of the fact that the title trustee becomes a party to the contract and entered into a sales contract on real estate, and the registration of ownership transfer of the pertinent real estate is completed under the name of the title trustee pursuant to the said sales contract, the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the title trustee is null and void pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), and the ownership of the pertinent real estate is owned by the seller as it is (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2168, May 14, 2009). Thus, the title trustee cannot be deemed to be in the position of “a person who keeps another’s property” in the crime of embezzlement in relation to the title truster, who is not a party to the contract for real estate acquisition, and even if the title trustee

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2722 Decided September 25, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do455 Decided March 27, 2008, etc.). Meanwhile, the title trustee is obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership against the seller. However, since the registration of transfer of ownership becomes null and void from the beginning, the title trustee is in compliance with the seller’s claim for the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership as the other party’s claim for the removal of interference based on ownership. In addition, even if the disposal act conducted between the third party and the third party is likely to be effective pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Real Estate Real Name Act, such act is merely an exception to the invalidation of the title trust agreement to protect the third party, which is the counterparty of the transaction, and the said disposal act is valid between the seller and the title trustee.