(a) Whether a trust deed exists where the title trust real estate has been transferred in the name of a third party;

(b) the internal subject of ownership of the rights arising in relation to the ownership of the property trusted;

A. Generally, a title trust is generally established in the internal relationship between a truster and a trustee as a trustee in possession of ownership and management profits. The internal legal relationship between a truster and a trustee is formed by a kind of trust conclusion concluded between a truster and a trustee. As such, the legal relationship between a truster and a trustee under a trust agreement between a truster and a trustee is not always extinguished solely on the ground that the title trust of a trustee was resolved in the form by the registration of ownership transfer in the name of a third party, and the trust between a truster and a trustee is terminated or terminated, which constitutes the cause of the title trust, and the trustee continues to exist until the time when the trustee performs the liquidation obligation.

B. The basic principle of the trust contract for the establishment of a title trust relationship is that the truster holds the ownership of the subject matter in the internal relationship between the truster and the trustee, so the right arising in relation to the ownership of the subject matter is also attributed to the truster in the internal relationship. Therefore, if the truster terminates the trust contract, the trustee is obligated to transfer the right to the truster.

Article 103 (title Trust) of the Civil Act

Attorney Kim Young-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant from among the anti-Nam-Jak-Jak Kim

Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na4313 delivered on October 27, 1986

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

First, we examine the Plaintiff’s legal representative’s ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff's previous land was originally owned by the plaintiff (as of August 10, 1972, the plaintiff was decided to transfer the above land to the non-party who is the plaintiff's heir, and the non-party, who is the defendant's tenant, completed registration of ownership transfer to the non-party under the above non-party's name (as of September 9, 1976, the above non-party's death), and the above previous land is located within the development project area of the Gangdong-gu High Zone implemented by the non-party Land Development Corporation. The plaintiff's clan decided to transfer the above land to the above non-party, who is the plaintiff's heir of the above deceased's title trustee, to the non-party 1,204. Since the plaintiff's previous land was transferred to the non-party 1,204, the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's heir of the above non-party 1, who was entitled to purchase the above land under the above public title trust agreement, the plaintiff's right to purchase the above land within 1, within the market price.

Generally, as the court below properly states, the title trust is generally held by the truster in the internal relationship, and only the title holder in the public register is the trustee, and only the title holder in the public register is the trustee. However, the internal legal relationship between the truster and the trustee is formed by a kind of trust agreement concluded between the truster and the trustee. In this case, the legal relationship between the truster and the trustee under the trust agreement is not necessarily extinguished solely on the ground that the title trust of the trusted real estate becomes cancelled in the form of a third party and the title trust of the trustee has been terminated, but it may be possible to terminate the trust agreement, which forms the cause of the title trust, and continue until the trustee performs its liquidation obligation. The basic principle of the trust agreement for the establishment of the title trust relationship is that the ownership of the subject matter is always owned by the truster in the internal relationship between the truster and the trustee, so the right related to the ownership of the subject matter belongs to the truster, and if the truster terminates the trust agreement, the trustee is obligated to transfer the right to the truster.

As duly determined by the court below, if the plaintiff trusted the previous land owned by the plaintiff to the deceased non-party who is the defendant's prior owner, and the defendant who succeeded to the status of the trustee agreed upon and sold the previous land (the price is received by the plaintiff) to the above non-party Corporation in consultation with the plaintiff, and after completing the registration of ownership transfer, if the real estate in this case was purchased from the above non-party Corporation in the name of the defendant who had the title holder to compensate for the previous land, the registration title of the previous land was transferred to the above non-party Corporation, and the title trust of the previous land was resolved formally, even if the title of the previous land was transferred to the above non-party Corporation and the title trust of the previous land was resolved formally, the defendant's right to the real estate in the internal relation

Therefore, the court below, without examining the internal trust relationship between the truster and the trustee in the title trust, rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the title trust relationship had already been terminated as the ownership of the previous land was transferred to the above non-party corporation with the recording entered in the public record and the name registered, barring any special circumstances, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the trust agreement which establishes the title trust, or in the incomplete hearing or the lack of reasoning, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a reason to point out this error.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)