[1] In a case where a title trust is terminated and the title of registration is transferred to the title truster after the completion of the prescription period for possession of the real estate held in title trust and the transfer of the title to the title truster, whether the claim for the prescriptive acquisition may be made (negative)

[2] In a case where a clan title trust to an individual and the third party's acquisition by prescription has been completed after the acquisition by the third party for the real estate in its name, whether the third party may claim for the acquisition by prescription against the clan (negative)

[1] In a case where a title truster terminates a title trust after the completion of the prescription period for possession of real estate held in title trust, and the title truster transfers the title to a title truster, according to the purport of the title trust, if the title truster is transferred from the title truster to the title truster, only the title truster is treated as the ownership in an external relationship, and the title truster shall be liable for registration at the time of the completion of the prescription period. Thus, the title truster’s acquisition of the title truster is separate from whether it is a registration based on anti-social act based on which the person liable for registration actively participated in the act of breach of trust by the person liable for registration, or for any other reason, and thus, the title truster

[2] Even in cases where a clan registered a title trust to an individual for real estate owned by the clan and received the circumstances in its name, the title holder of the clan acquired the ownership of the real estate in the original and creative manner. Therefore, in cases where the clan did not register the ownership of the real estate in the name of the clan after the fact that the clan was given the title trust to an individual, and then the title holder did not register the ownership of the real estate, if the registration of ownership was made immediately in the name of the clan after the expiration of the acquisition period by a third party, the ownership shall be deemed to have been transferred to the newly title truster in the external relationship, and in such cases, the clan

[1] Articles 103 [title trust], 186, and 245 (1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 103 [title trust], 186, and 245 (1) of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da22484 delivered on May 9, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 2078), Supreme Court Decision 95Da38493 delivered on December 8, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 344), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da21987 delivered on August 22, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 2009) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da3472 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong192, 2251), Supreme Court Decision 92Da18764 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong192, 3270)

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorney Choi Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

B. The clans of the Domins of the Domins of the Republic of Korea (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jeonju District Court Decision 98Na6315 delivered on December 17, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the main claim

If a title trust is terminated after the prescriptive acquisition of real estate held in title is completed, and the title of registration is transferred from the title trustee to the title trustee after the prescriptive acquisition is completed, and the title of registration is transferred from the title trustee, according to the purport of the title trust, only the title holder shall be treated as the ownership in the external relationship, and the title trustee shall be liable for the registration at the time the statute of limitations expires. Thus, aside from the case where the title truster’s acquisition is based on whether it is a registration based on anti-social act actively involved in the act of breach of trust committed by the person liable for registration, or for any other reason, the title truster constitutes a person who acquires the ownership after the statute of limitations expires, and thus, he/she cannot claim the prescriptive acquisition against the title truster (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da

Furthermore, in a case where a clan registered a title trust to an individual for the real estate owned by the clan and received the circumstances in its name, the title holder of the circumstance acquires the ownership of the real estate in the original and creative manner. Thus, in a case where a clan registered a title trust to an individual for the real estate owned by it, and the title holder of the circumstance did not register the ownership of the real estate in the name of the clan immediately after the expiration of the prescriptive prescription period of a third party, if the registration of ownership was made in the name of the clan, the ownership shall be deemed to have been transferred to the title truster newly in the external relationship only when the ownership was acquired, and in this case,

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on September 25, 1921, Defendant clan purchased the instant land from Nonparty 1 and five other persons, under title trust, and received the circumstances in its name, and completed registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on August 27, 1980. Nonparty 2, the inheritee, cultivated the instant land among the instant forest, and died on March 8, 1975, and thus, Nonparty 2 cultivated or leased it. Accordingly, the court below rejected the Defendant from the date of commencement of the acquisition by prescription on January 5, 1959, because Nonparty 2 purchased the instant land from Nonparty 1, who acquired it after the death of the Plaintiffs, and thereafter acquired it by prescription on March 8, 1995, it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the date of commencement of the acquisition by prescription, as it did not start from the date of commencement of the new title trust, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the date of commencement of the acquisition by prescription.

The grounds of appeal pointing out this issue are rejected.

2. As to the conjunctive claim

The plaintiffs' assertion that the seller of the instant part of land to the non-party 2 is the non-party 1. First of all, the facts of the contract alone cannot assert the validity of the contract against the defendant who is not the contracting party. Next, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the circumstances such as delegation or consent in advance to sell the instant part of land to the non-party 1, the title truster, etc. or ratification of the sales contract even after the fact. Thus, the plaintiffs' preliminary claim seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration against the defendant based on the sales contract with the non-party 1 is without merit

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal disputing this issue are not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)