[1] The probative value of a registration certificate and a title trust

[2] Where it is recognized that the third party paid the purchase price with the purchase fund sent by the person claiming that the title truster was the title truster, and where there is no status relationship between the title truster and the person claiming that the title trustee is the title trustee, if the person named as the title trustee holds the legal relationship documents, whether it may interfere with recognizing the title trust (affirmative with qualification)

[1] In general, where only the name of the owner of real estate is entrusted to another person, documents proving the legal relationship, such as the registration certificate, are held by the title truster, who is the actual owner. Thus, if the title truster does not possess these documents of legal relationship and instead holds a person who is called the title trustee, this would interfere with the recognition of the title trust relationship, unless there is a clear explanation that he/she would be able to obtain the said documents of legal relationship.

[2] The legal principle that if a title truster does not possess a document related to the title trust but holds a person who is called the title trustee, the title truster may interfere with the recognition of the title trust relationship, unless there is any explanation from the person claiming that the title truster purchases the object of sale to a third party and delegates the purchase fund to the third party, and it is recognized that the third party paid the purchase fund. Even if there is no other personal relationship between the title truster and the title trustee, the third party does not have any possibility of free donation of the fund. This is because, while the third party was delegated by the person claiming that the title trustee is the title trustee to purchase the object of sale from the person claiming that the object of sale was the title trustee, or he had the mind to transfer the object of sale to him for any other reason, it is reasonable not only to establish the title trust relationship between the title truster and the person claiming that the purchase of the document is a title trust relationship, but also to establish the documents related to the title trust relationship with the title trustee.

[1] Article 103 of the Civil Act / [title trust] Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 103 of the Civil Act / [title trust], Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1750, 1751 decided Jan. 29, 1985 (Gong1985, 362), Supreme Court Decision 96Da18816 decided Sep. 10, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3001), Supreme Court Decision 95Da3273 decided Jan. 24, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 625) decided Jan. 28, 200 (Gong200Sang, 569)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Seo Gyeong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 97Na11710 delivered on May 21, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Generally, in a case where only a real estate owner’s title is entrusted to another person, documents proving the same legal relationship as the registration right certificate are held by the title truster, who is the actual owner. Thus, if the title truster, who is claiming to be a title truster, does not possess such legal relationship documents and instead holds a person who is called the title trustee, this would interfere with the recognition of the title trust relationship, unless there is any explanation to obtain satisfaction as to the circumstance of holding the documents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu1750, Jan. 29, 1985; 96Da18816, Sept. 10, 196; 95Da32273, Jan. 24, 1997).

In addition, this legal doctrine recognizes the fact that a third party paid the purchase fund by requesting a third party to purchase the subject matter of sale and delegating the purchase fund to a third party, and it does not change even if there is no other status relationship between the title truster and the title trustee who is the title trustee. This is because, in the event that a third party was delegated by the title trustee to request the purchase of the subject matter of sale from the person who is named as the title trustee, or he had the mind to transfer the subject matter of sale to him for any other reason, the fact that the purchase fund was paid to the title trustee by purchasing the subject matter of sale in the name of the person who is named as the title trustee as the money, even if the title truster purchased the subject matter of sale in the name of the title trustee and transferred it to the title trustee, it cannot be said that a title trust relationship is established between the person who holds the documents related to the relation of rights and the person who asserts as the title trustee bears the burden of proving the establishment of a title trust relationship.

Therefore, in such a case, the grounds of appeal purporting to the effect that the title truster, in light of the empirical rule and logical rule, should be deemed as the actual owner of the subject matter of sale, unless the title trustee, who is named as the title trustee, fails to inform him/her of the circumstances in which he/she possesses the documents related to rights,

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of each of the defendant on March 22, 1993 with respect to the area of 4,380 square meters in the Gyeonggi-gun ( Address 1 omitted) 754 square meters prior to March 22, 1993 with respect to the real estate of this case, based on macro-si evidence. The plaintiff's assertion that each of the above transfer registrations in the defendant's name was made through the title trust should be the agreement between the truster and the trustee about the title trust in order to establish the title trust. The plaintiff transferred the money to the deceased non-party four times in total, and the non-party paid the sale price of each of the above land of this case with the above funds, but the defendant possessed the sales contract, receipt and registration rights, etc. of each of this case, and therefore, the judgment of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the records and the non-party's title trust, nor did it be found that there were any errors in the grounds for appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)