In a case where the registration of ownership transfer has been completed with respect to all of the land which was not divided on the register while selling part of the land of one parcel, the legal relationship between the parties to the transaction as to the part of the land which was not sold (=title trust)

In the case where a transfer registration of ownership has been made from a seller for all the land which was not divided into the land on the register while selling a part of one parcel of land, the title trust relation between two persons has been established with respect to the part of the land which the seller did not sell to the buyer, unless there are special circumstances.

Article 103 of the Civil Act / [title trust]

Supreme Court Decision 92Da33954 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 578) Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63690 Delivered on February 14, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 376)

Plaintiff 1 and seven others (Attorney Realizationmo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2008Na2092 Decided May 1, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The allegation of misunderstanding the preparation of evidence and fact-finding belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court, which is a fact-finding court, cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In a case where a transfer registration of ownership has been made from a seller for all the land which was not divided into the land on the register while selling part of one parcel of land, the title trust relation between two persons was established with respect to the part of the land which the seller did not sell to the buyer (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da33954 delivered on December 22, 1992; 2007Da63690 delivered on February 14, 2008, etc.).

Based on its adopted evidence, Nonparty 1 sold to Nonparty 2 the part 123 square meters (which was divided into the land of this case) of the land before the partition in spring around 1968, but the deceased Nonparty 2 did not complete the registration of ownership transfer as to the above purchase portion. Meanwhile, Nonparty 1 sold to Nonparty 3 the part (other than the land of this case) which was cultivated as dry field from around 1981, but the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 30, 1981 as to the entire land before the partition in this case on the following grounds: Nonparty 3 did not complete the registration of ownership transfer as to the land of this case on July 7, 1989, and Nonparty 2 sold the part of the land of this case, which was owned by Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 4 on July 26, 198, and the lower court recognized the registration of ownership transfer as to the land of this case on July 26, 198.

However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Even according to the facts found by the court below, the non-party 1 sold the part of the land before the partition to the deceased non-party 2 but did not complete the registration of ownership transfer as to the sale part. After that, the non-party 1 did not complete the registration of ownership transfer as to the whole land before the partition. The non-party 3 sold only the part of the land before the partition to the non-party 3, excluding the part of the land of this case, and the non-party 3 completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the whole land before the partition. The non-party 3 sold only the part of the land before the partition to the non-party 4 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the non-party 5 designated by the non-party 4. In light of the above legal principles, it can be deemed that the title trust relationship was established between the non-party 1, etc. and the non-party 3 or non-party 5, respectively. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the registration of ownership transfer in the non-party 3's name and the registration of the cause of this case ①.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which made a different judgment is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to title trust, and it is clear that such illegality affected the judgment. The ground of appeal on this point is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)