Whether the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership on the ground of the termination of the trust of the trust property ceases to exist by the prescription

Simple title trust is a relationship in which a truster substantially holds ownership and a trustee acquires the title of registration only formally without being given the right to load, etc. on such real estate. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the truster may at any time terminate the trust, seek implementation of the registration procedure for transfer of the title of ownership only on the ground of termination of the trust relationship with the trustee, as well as make such a claim on the ground of termination of the trust and based on the ownership. In this case, the right to claim for registration is not extinguished by prescription.

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

Defendant 1 and one other attorney-at-law

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na354,355 delivered on December 11, 1974

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the above 1 forest land was trusted on April 25, 1936 to the deceased non-party (OOO), who was known to the plaintiff temple, after purchasing on March 30, 1949 the forest land attached to the attached list 1 forest land among the real estate in this case, with the money of the plaintiff's temple's own shares and the plaintiff's own shares. The above 1 forest land was trusted on Oct. 5, 195, with the fact that the above 4 forest land was trusted on a title trust after completing the registration of transfer of ownership on Oct. 4, 195. The court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party's consent to the change of the title of the plaintiff's property No. 4 in this case's title of the land in this case with the plaintiff's own shares and the non-party's real property's title trust was not admissible as evidence for the above fact-finding, and it did not have any error in the above 10 non-party's title trust evidence.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 1

As to the plaintiff's claim of extinctive prescription against the right to claim for registration of objection

Since this title trust is recognized to have been terminated by 1973.9.19, the above assertion by the defendant et al. is groundless and it is clear that it was rejected. Thus, according to the records, the plaintiff's attorney, at the time of the first instance court's oral argument, purchased the title trust and this real estate to the deceased non-party who was known at the time of the first instance court, and cancelled the title trust as of October 27, 1962, and the plaintiff's agent, without any specific reasons, stated that the title trust was terminated by the plaintiff's request for the execution of the procedure for the transfer of ownership as of July 4, 1973, which was the reason for the cancellation of the trust, stated that the title trust was extinguished by the plaintiff's request for the transfer of the above real estate without any specific reason, and the plaintiff's claim for the transfer of the title trust was made without any specific reason, and it is clear that the plaintiff's claim for the transfer of the title trust will have title to the above real estate as an organization of the non-party.

3. Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 400, 395, and 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act on the grounds that there are no grounds for appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench regarding the burden of litigation costs.

Justices Hong Man-hee (Presiding Justice)