[1] Where several persons jointly purchase real estate, the legal relationship between the purchaser

[2] In a case where a union whose business purpose is to operate a business is to register the ownership transfer under the name of one union member without filing a joint ownership registration for the real estate acquired by the union's property, whether the union should be deemed to have held the title trust for the union member (affirmative)

[1] In a case where several persons jointly purchase real estate, the legal relationship between the buyers is merely a co-owner, and thus the seller bears the duty to transfer the ownership of the share to the purchaser, and there is also a case where the seller takes the duty to transfer the ownership from the partnership with the number of the purchaser as its members.

[2] In a case where the purchaser acquired the ownership of real estate as the partnership's property, if the partnership aimed at running a joint business by making mutual investments, it naturally becomes the partnership's property pursuant to the provisions of Article 271 (1) of the Civil Code. However, if the partnership did not make a joint registration and instead made the registration of ownership transfer in the name of one partner, it shall be deemed that the partnership held the title trust to the partnership members.

[1] Articles 262, 271(1), and 704 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 103 of the Civil Act / [1] Articles 271(1), and 704 of the Civil Act

［1］［2］ 대법원 2002. 6. 14. 선고 2000다30622 판결 (공2002하, 1627) ［1］ 대법원 1995. 9. 15. 선고 94다54894 판결 (공1995하, 3378)

(Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Yellow-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2002Na3356 delivered on April 9, 2003

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where several persons jointly purchase real estate, the legal relationship between the buyers is merely a co-ownership, and the seller bears the obligation to transfer the ownership of the share to the buyer. There may also be cases where the seller bears the obligation to transfer the ownership of the partnership's property. However, if the buyer acquired the ownership of the real estate as the partnership's property for the purpose of conducting a joint business by investing the trade name, the partnership's property naturally becomes a combination of the partnership's property under Article 271 (1) of the Civil Act. However, if the partnership registered the ownership transfer in the name of one partner without completing the joint ownership registration, it shall be deemed that the partnership held the title in trust to the partner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da54894, Sept. 15, 1995; 200Da30622, Jun. 14, 2002).

According to the records, it is revealed that Defendant 1 entered into a trade agreement with Defendant 1 to sell the instant real estate to Defendant 3 and Nonparty 2 as a means for Defendant 2 to repay the debt borrowed against Defendant 3 and Nonparty 2, but to deduct the above loan amount from the purchase price. Defendant 3 and Nonparty 2 entered into a trade agreement with Defendant 2 to sell the instant real estate to others and distribute profits in accordance with the investment ratio. After purchasing the instant real estate between Defendant 2 and Defendant 2, Defendant 1 entered into a trade agreement with Defendant 2 to jointly purchase the instant real estate with Defendant 2 and to sell the real estate in the name of Defendant 2, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant real estate in the name of Defendant 2. Examining these facts in light of the above legal principles, since Defendant 2 and 3 and the above Nonparty 2 jointly purchased the instant real estate after forming the partnership pursuant to the above trade agreement, it is reasonable to view that the instant real estate was composed of the real estate under the name of Defendant 2, a joint owner of the instant real estate under the title trust agreement.

In this regard, the court below's decision that Defendant 2 had the obligation to cancel the registration of ownership transfer as to some portion of the real estate of this case, and Defendant 3 had the obligation to cancel the registration of ownership transfer claim right which was made based on the registration of ownership transfer as requested by the plaintiff is just and acceptable. There is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence due to a violation of the Civil Act, in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the union, internal union and title trust, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prohibition of disposal of

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

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)