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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), where the title truster and the title trustee entered into a contract title trust agreement with the owner who was unaware of the fact that the title trustee was a party to the contract and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the pertinent real estate in accordance with the said contract, the title trustee would acquire full ownership of the pertinent real estate notwithstanding the invalidity of the title trust agreement between the title truster and the title trustee, and the title trustee would only bear the obligation to return unjust enrichment to the title truster.

However, in a case where the contract title trust agreement was made after the enforcement of the Real Estate Real Name Act, the title truster could not acquire ownership of the pertinent real estate from the beginning. Therefore, the damage suffered by the title truster due to the invalidity of the above title trust agreement shall be deemed as the purchase fund provided to the title trustee rather than the pertinent real estate itself, and therefore, the title trustee shall be deemed to unjust enrichment only

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da69148 Decided February 14, 2008, etc.). If the parties to a contract agree to transfer the ownership registration of real estate for the purpose of the title truster in the future on the premise that the title truster has an internal ownership, that is, if the parties to the contract agree to transfer the ownership registration of real estate for the purpose of the title truster in the future or pay the price for disposal of the real estate to the title truster, such agreement shall be null and void in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Real Estate Real Name

However, as seen earlier, the trustee is the trustee.