[1] The method of determining the parties to a contract where the actor has entered into the contract under the name of another

[2] In a case where an agreement to purchase real estate under another person’s name was made (=the other party)

[3] In the so-called contract title trust, where the seller knew of the existence of a title trust agreement, and the sales contract is null and void pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, whether the status of the buyer under the sales contract naturally reverts to the title truster (negative), and whether the title truster has the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the seller

[1] In a case where an actor who entered into a contract did a juristic act in another’s name and the intent of the actor and the other party to the contract are identical, the parties to the contract shall be determined by the consent of the actor and the nominal owner. If the other party does not coincide with the intent of the actor and the other party, the parties shall be determined by whether the other party would understand one of the actor and the nominal owner as the parties to the contract, based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, including the nature, content, purpose, and circumstance of the contract.

[2] If a certain person, through another person, decides to purchase real estate under the name of the purchaser and the registration of transfer of ownership, the trust relationship between the purchaser and the registration titleholder is merely an internal relationship between them. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the third party should be deemed the party to the sale and purchase.

[3] In a case where a certain person agreed to purchase real estate through another person's name in the name of the buyer and the registration of transfer of ownership are null and void by Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, and a sales contract becomes null and void by that agreement, even if the status of the buyer under the sales contract is not naturally attributed to the title truster, but if the seller, who is the contracting party, expresses his/her intent to transfer the real estate to the title truster by consenting to or consenting to the fact that the title truster becomes the buyer of the contract, instead of the title truster, after such invalidation is revealed, if the title truster, who is the contracting party, expresses his/her intention to transfer the real estate to the title truster, it is reasonable to deem that a separate transfer agreement was concluded between the seller and the title truster regardless of the intention of the title truster who lost his/her status as the buyer

[1] Article 105 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 105 and 186 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 103 of the Civil Act / [title trust], Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder'

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da4912 delivered on September 29, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3584 delivered on March 13, 1998) Supreme Court Decision 97Da22089 delivered on March 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1011) Supreme Court Decision 99Da7183 delivered on June 25, 1999 (No47-1, 308), Supreme Court Decision 200Da3897 delivered on May 29, 200 (Gong201Sang, 1455) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da909 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1524), Supreme Court Decision 192Da1635 delivered on May 16, 1995 (No. 1993Ha, 1524).

Plaintiff (Completion of Attorney-at-Law)

Defendant 1 and nine others (Attorney Kim Won-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 2000Na8555 delivered on April 18, 2001

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

1. Summary of the judgment of the court below

On March 22, 198, the Plaintiff purchased 2,020 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) from Nonparty 1 on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased’s heir, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the deceased Nonparty 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). After that, despite the enforcement of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter referred to as the “Real Estate Real Name Act”), the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the deceased is null and void, and the ownership transfer registration under the deceased’s name is also null and void. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that Nonparty 1, on behalf of Nonparty 1, for the purpose of preserving the right to claim the ownership transfer registration against Nonparty 1, the deceased’s heir, seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration concerning a part of the instant land’s share ownership transfer registration. The lower court determined as follows.

In other words, on March 22, 198, when the Plaintiff purchased the land of this case from Nonparty 1 in the name of 19,500,000 won on the recommendation of the deceased, the lower court presumed that the Plaintiff’s purchase of the land of this case from Nonparty 1 does not belong to the purchaser of the land, taking into account the fact that the land of this case is farmland, and concluded a sales contract by stating himself as the purchaser of the land in the contract as the purchaser, and concluded the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the deceased. On May 7, 1988, the lower court acknowledged that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the deceased, the trustee, the name of the purchaser and the ownership transfer in the name of the third party, and concluded the sales contract in the name of the third party, barring any special circumstance, it does not belong to the purchaser’s agent, and it does not mean that the seller’s status as the purchaser under the sales contract belongs to the purchaser, and it does not mean that the Plaintiff’s right to claim the registration of this case is unlawful.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. On the first ground for appeal

In cases where an actor who enters into a contract performs a juristic act in another person’s name, as to whom the actor or the title holder is the party to the contract, the identity of the actor or the title holder shall be determined as the party to the contract in accordance with the consistent intent if the actor and the other party agree with each other. In cases where the intent of the actor and the other party does not coincide with each other, the other party shall be determined by determining who is the actor and the title holder among the parties to the contract in accordance with the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da3897, May 29, 2001, etc.). However, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, if a certain person wants to purchase real estate through another person under the name of the other party, the trust relationship between the buyer and the title holder is merely an internal relationship between them, and barring special circumstances, the other party shall be deemed the party to the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da38979, Apr. 23, 1993).

The court below held that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the non-party 1 and entrusted the purchaser and the registration name to the deceased, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the deceased, so the parties to the contract of this case were the deceased, who are the trustee. In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the determination of contracting parties.

B. On the second ground for appeal

In a case where a certain person, in purchasing real estate through another person, agreed to the name of the buyer and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of another person, and the agreement becomes null and void pursuant to Article 4 of the Real Estate Real Name Act, and the sales contract becomes null and void accordingly, even if the status of the buyer under the sales contract is not naturally attributed to the title truster, but if the seller, who is the contracting party, gives consent or gives consent to the fact that he/she becomes the buyer of the contract and expresses his/her intention to transfer the real estate to the title truster instead of the title truster, it is reasonable to deem that a separate transfer agreement has been concluded between the seller and the title truster regardless of the intention of the title truster who loses his/her status as the buyer by the invalidation of the title trust agreement, regardless of the intention of the title truster who loses his/her status as the buyer. In such case, even

According to the facts and records of the decision of the court below, at the time of the preparation of the sales contract of this case, the plaintiff, a title truster, attended the plaintiff as his agent and sold the land of this case to the plaintiff, and as his relative, the plaintiff was actually the purchaser of the land of this case to the non-party 4 who participated in the contract with the non-party 1, his wife, who is his own agent, but the plaintiff was unable to acquire ownership of the land of this case, and the plaintiff had already obtained prior consent of the deceased to enter into a sales contract under the name of the deceased, which is farmland. The non-party 1 and the seller did not participate at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract of this case, but had already been aware of the fact that the purchaser was the actual purchaser of the land of this case, but the name of the plaintiff and the title transfer registration were entrusted to the plaintiff. Thus, if the non-party 1 appeared as a witness in the lawsuit of this case, and the actual purchaser testified the plaintiff, the seller, was aware of the fact that the sale contract of this case was null and void.

Therefore, the court below should have further deliberated on whether the plaintiff agreed to or consented to the sale agreement between the plaintiff and the deceased when the non-party 1, a seller, was aware of the title trust agreement between the plaintiff and the deceased, and whether the plaintiff's right to claim the transfer of ownership exists. However, the court below held that the plaintiff did not have a right to claim the transfer of ownership against the non-party 1 as the purchaser of the sale agreement of this case, and that the plaintiff did not have a right to claim the transfer of ownership even if the non-party 1, the seller, was aware of the fact that the plaintiff was the actual purchaser of the sale agreement of this case. Thus, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the case where the agreement to purchase real estate was null and void

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)