The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the defendant, on behalf of the plaintiff Gap, sought to transfer the ownership of a building to Gap, the defendant directly performed the procedure for transferring the ownership of the building and thus violated the disposal right principle.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff title trust of the building to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the suspension of title trust in front of the Defendant, on behalf of the Defendant, on the part of the Defendant, on the ground that the lower judgment stated in the above purport of the claim, included the purport of seeking implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the suspension of title trust in the name of the Plaintiff, on the ground that it is reasonable to deem that the purport of the lower judgment was that the Plaintiff’s direct execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration in the name of the Plaintiff was included in the above purport of the claim

Article 186 of the Civil Act (title trust) Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act

Attorney Jin-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Park Young-gu, Attorney Lee Young-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na28582 delivered on April 12, 1989

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the above transfer registration of the above-mentioned building was transferred from the above 198 to the above 1st century in lieu of repayment of the loan obligation to the plaintiff, the court below held that the above 1st of the above 6th of the above 6th of the title trust registration was made under the name of the above 1st of the title trust, and that the above transfer registration was made under the name of the non-party 1, 2 and 3 for the above 8th of the title trust, and that the above 6th of the title trust registration was made under the name of the above 1st of the title trust, and the above 9th of the title trust registration was made under the name of the non-party 1 and the above 9th of the title trust registration was made under the name of the above 1st of the title trust, and the above 9th of the title trust registration was not made under the name of the above 1st of the non-party 1, and thus, the above 9th of the title trust registration was made under the above 9th of the title trust.

However, in order to establish a title trust relationship, it requires clear and explicit intent to trust the above name between the truster and the trustee. As recognized by the court below, the non-party who represented the plaintiff shall return the title of registration to the plaintiff in the name of the title trustee of the building of this case for which the claim for the payment of site usage fees was filed by the owner of the building of this case, but the plaintiff did not have the ability to resolve this issue. Although the plaintiff was assigned the building of this case from the owner of the building of this case, although the construction was not completed, the dispute over the ownership and possession of the building of this case between the owner of the building site, the construction subcontractor, the buyer of the building and the general creditor of the owner of the building of this case could not be sufficiently exercised the ownership of the building of this case, under the circumstances where it is difficult to know that the above ownership of the building of this case should be exercised, the non-party 4 was involved in the 6th generation settlement of the above 5th generation's signature and the above 400 times of the evidence of this case's statement that the plaintiff received the above 40000 times of this case's evidence.

Ultimately, the lower court’s determination that it was a title trust is reasonable in that it erred in the determination of evidence, or erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reasoning and title trust, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

The court below held that the plaintiff, as the preliminary claim in this case, sought the registration procedure for transfer registration of ownership for the above buildings Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the defendant Park Jong-gu, on the basis of the facts identical to the above recognition, and that the plaintiff was seeking the registration procedure for transfer registration of ownership for the above buildings on Nov. 10, 198 and on Nov. 11, 198. The plaintiff asserted that the title trustee of each of the building in this case had a title trust relationship for the above buildings again between the non-party Park Jong-dam, who is the original title trustee of each of the building in this case, and on the ground that the title trust relationship for the above buildings was formed again between the above letter-type and the defendant Park Jong-dam, by subrogation of the above letter-type, he sought the registration procedure for transfer registration for ownership for the reasons of cancellation of title trust. However, the court below's determination that the plaintiff had already been a co-defendant in the court below's judgment, based on the purport that the plaintiff did not seek transfer registration for title registration for the above building in this case's name.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won