A. Whether the sales contract between the title trustee and the third party is valid in a case where the third party who purchased the trust property from the title trustee actively participated in the act of worship against the title truster (negative)

B. In the case of the above “A”, whether a third party can claim damages on the ground of nonperformance of the contract on the premise that the sales contract is valid for the trustee (negative)

A. Generally, a title trustee may dispose of trust property to a third party effectively, and even if a third party knew of the fact of title trust, it does not affect his/her acquisition of ownership. However, in special circumstances, in cases where a third party who purchased trust property from a title trustee actively participated in an act of good faith against a title trustee, a contract between the title trustee and the third party shall be deemed null and void as an anti-social legal act. Accordingly, a sales contract between the title trustee and the third party on the entrusted real estate shall be deemed null and void.

B. In the case of the above “A”, if the sales contract between the title trustee and the third party becomes null and void as an anti-social juristic act, it cannot be deemed that it is no longer effective only between the third party and the title truster, and it should be deemed null and void even between the third party and the title trustee. Therefore, the third party cannot claim damages against the title trustee on the premise that the above sales contract is valid.

A.B. Article 103 and Article 186 of the Civil Code / [title trust] Article 390 of the Civil Code

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da6221 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1481), 91Da26072 delivered on October 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 2809), Supreme Court Decision 92Da1148 delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong192, 1422)

Attorney Kim Chang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and 14 Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na28561 delivered on July 12, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the above clan 71,760,000 won again from the above clan on September 7, 1989 and the remaining defendants (only the defendants of the court of first instance) who are not the co-defendant 2 of the court of first instance, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based thereon. However, the land of this case was originally trusted to the defendants of the court of first instance by filing a lawsuit against the plaintiff for cancellation of the above ownership transfer registration against the plaintiff, and the above judgment was affirmed. Thus, the court below determined that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the above clan 71,760,000 won again on September 7, 198, and that the defendants' obligations under the above sales contract against the plaintiff of the court of first instance as to the plaintiff was impossible to perform as of October 25, 198.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff was aware that the land of this case was the property trusted by the defendants of the first instance before purchasing the land of this case from the defendants of the first instance, and did not comply with the conclusion of the trade contract for the reason that the price of the above clan was too low. The above clans filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on the ground that the above trade contract between the plaintiff and the defendants of the first instance court was null and void as it is an anti-social legal act. The Seoul High Court, which was the appellate court of this case, accepted the claim of the above clans on the ground that the above trade contract was null and void because the plaintiff actively participated in the acts of worship against the defendants of the first instance court, and the judgment was confirmed to have become final and conclusive, and in light of the circumstances surrounding the above trade contract between the plaintiff and the defendants of the first instance, it seems that the plaintiff actively participated in the acts of worship of the defendants of the first instance court.

In general, a title truster may dispose of trust property effectively to a third party and even if a third party becomes aware of the fact of title trust, it does not affect the acquisition of ownership. However, in cases where there are special circumstances such as this case, if a third party who purchased trust property from a title trustee actively enters into an act of worship against a title trustee, a contract between the title trustee and the third party shall be null and void as an anti-social juristic act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Da2299, Oct. 24, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 91Da6221, Apr. 23, 191; Supreme Court Decision 91Da26072, Oct. 22, 191; etc.) therefore, a sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants in the first instance trial concerning the instant real estate shall be null and void. If the above sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants in the first instance becomes null and void as an anti-social juristic act, it shall not be deemed null and void between the Plaintiff and the Defendants in the first instance judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff can claim damages against the defendants on the premise that the above sales contract is valid is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of anti-social legal acts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the argument that points this out is justified

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.