In a contract title trust, whether the trustee constitutes “a person who administers another’s business” against the truster (negative)

Articles 355(2) and 356 of the Criminal Act; Article 4(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name

Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2722 Delivered on September 25, 2001, Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6994 Delivered on April 27, 2004

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 2007No1209 Decided December 27, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A trust agreement is concluded between a truster and a trustee, and accordingly, the truster acquires the ownership of the real estate in a trust agreement with the owner who was not aware of the fact that the trust agreement was concluded. The trustee is merely obligated to return unjust enrichment due to the invalidation of the trust agreement to the truster. As long as the obligation to return unjust enrichment is not only the ordinary obligation to the truster due to the invalidation of the trust agreement, but also the trust agreement between the truster and the trustee is null and void, barring any special circumstance, barring any delegation agreement between the truster and the trustee for the purchase of real estate, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the trustee is in the position of a person who administers another person’s business by imposing a duty not to manage real estate on behalf of the truster or dispose of it without the truster’s permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do2722, Sept. 25, 2001; 2003Do694, Apr. 27, 2004).

The court below held that the defendant is not in the status of preserving and managing the property of the union, on the ground that the above contract title trust relationship between the union and the union is established to allow the name of the purchaser of the house of this case to be purchased under the name of the defendant's wife, and that such contract is invalid. The above recognition and decision of the court below are justified in light of the above legal principles and

Even if there are some inappropriate parts in the reasoning of the court below, it is just in its conclusion, so there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject of breach of trust as pointed out in the court below's judgment, and the ground of appeal that criticizes the court below's evidence preparation and fact-finding cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)