If a trustee in the name of real estate disposes of the entrusted real estate, a copy of the ownership claim against a third party;

If a trustee has completed the registration of ownership transfer on the whole land of the previous land including a specific part of the land among the land within one parcel for convenience due to the relationship not divided while selling and selling it, barring any special circumstance, it constitutes a title trust where a title trust is made to a purchaser with respect to a part of the land which is not sold, and where the ownership of the real estate is held in title trust, the ownership is externally reverted to the trustee, so if the trustee disposes of the entrusted real estate to a third party, the truster may not claim the ownership of the third party on the ground that the property

Article 103 (Title Trust)

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1819 Decided July 28, 1981, 65Da2531 Decided February 15, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 80Da1819 Decided July 28, 198, and 85Meu2508 Decided March 10, 1987

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Incheon District Court Decision 87Na111 delivered on October 16, 1987

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd. is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 shall be borne by the same Defendant.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first and third points:

The reasoning of the judgment below is based on the premise that Defendant 1 purchased 546 square meters from the Plaintiff, including the 11th square meters of the instant land, and that the entire purchase was indicated in the sales contract, and that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by contrasting with the Supreme Court precedents and the Supreme Court precedents regarding the interpretation of the object of sale and purchase in the case of the entire purchase of specific land, but according to the records, the above sales contract (Evidence A No. 4) is stated as the area column of object (546 square meters including the above 11th square meters of the site area as it was not divided at the time of the contract, and its area was 546 square meters of the above 11th square meters of the land area. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the land substitution plan No. 3 of the land substitution plan as well as the fact-finding theory that the above case and the land substitution plan No. 1524 meters of the land purchased by the above evidence. 1.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

In the case of title trust of real estate, since ownership externally belongs to the trustee, when the trustee disposes of the entrusted real estate to a third party, the truster cannot claim ownership against the third party on the ground that the real estate held in title trust is the real estate held in title, unless there is any ground such as invalidation or revocation of the disposal act. (See Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2508, Mar. 10, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 80Da1819, Jul. 28, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 65Da2531, Feb. 15, 1966).

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, if the plaintiff comprehensively sold at 535 square meters of land to Defendant 1, except for the 11 square meters of land in this case, and completed the registration of ownership transfer, the land substitution disposition at the time was not determined, and the previous land also was transferred at 546 square meters of the previous land for convenience as the relation where the 11 square meters and 535 square meters are not divided. After the above 11 square meters were divided from the above 535 square meters, the court below recognized that the above 11 square meters of land was sold to Defendant Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd. and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future, on the ground that the above 11 square meters of land was sold to Defendant 1, the above 11 square meters of land was not included in the above objects of sale between the plaintiff and Defendant 1, and the above 111 square meters of land ownership transfer registration cannot be seen as null and void, and the above part of the land ownership transfer registration, including the above 11 square meters of ownership transfer registration, is also void.

However, the court below judged that the registration of Defendant Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd. on the land of this case was null and void for reasons as stated in its judgment, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by making conflicting judgments with the above precedents of the party members on the validity of real estate title trust. The ground for appeal is with merit.

3. Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd. is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)