In the case of a contract title trust, it is only possible to seek a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase fund of real estate.

Since acquiring real estate constitutes a contract title trust, and the former owner is deemed not aware of the title trust, the title truster can only seek a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of real estate purchase fund to the title trustee, and cannot seek a return of real estate itself, and there is no ground to deem that the Defendants, who acquired ownership through the title trustee, had the right to seek a transfer of ownership under the name

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

2014da6113 Registration of transfer of ownership

Korea

1. AA;

2. BB

August 21, 2014

October 16, 2014

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant AAAD shall implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list 3 and 4 to CCC. Defendant BB shall implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list 5 to CCC.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 1, 2010, the Plaintiff notified CCC of the transfer income tax of KRW 000,000. On November 4, 2010, the Plaintiff determined and notified CCC of the total amount of KRW 000,000,000 as the total income tax for the taxable year 2008 and the taxable year 2009, respectively.

B. OOO also has registered ownership transfer in the name of EE on the ground of sale by voluntary auction on April 11, 2008. After OOO also has registered ownership transfer in the name of EE on the ground of sale on May 7, 2008.

C. At around April 14, 2009, OOO also divided the real estate listed in [Attachment Nos. 3, 4-58, 24-59, and 24-60] listed in [Attachment Nos. 1 and 2] listed in [Attachment Nos. 1 and 2] listed in [Attachment Nos. 24-89, 24-90] into OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O9. On August 11, 2009.

D. On August 14, 2009, the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the Schedule No. 1 in the FF name, the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the Schedule No. 2 in the name of GG, the real estate listed in paragraphs (3) and (4) of the Schedule No. 3 and (5) in the name of Defendant AA, and the real estate listed in paragraph (5) in the Schedule No. 5

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1-3, Gap's evidence 1-6-1-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3, 4, and 5 (hereinafter referred to as “each real estate of this case”) is the real estate that CCC has title trusted in order with DD, EE, and the Defendants. Since the title trust agreement is null and void by the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, CCC has the right to seek the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate of this case from the Defendants. The Plaintiff seeks the ownership transfer against the Defendants in subrogation of CCC as a taxation right holder for CCC.

B. Determination

First, we examine whether CCC has the right to seek the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estate from the Defendants.

According to Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, where a title truster and a title trustee entered into a so-called contract title trust agreement, and the title trustee entered into a contract on real estate with the owner who was unaware of the fact that the title trustee was a party to the contract, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the relevant real estate in accordance with the said contract, the title trustee, notwithstanding the invalidity of the title trust agreement between the title truster and the title trustee, is fully entitled to the relevant real estate, and the title trustee is merely liable to return unjust enrichment to the title truster (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da904

In this case, even if CCC acquired each of the instant real estate in title trust with DDR, it constitutes a contractual title trust, and the previous owner appears to have not been aware that it was a title trust (DDR acquired real estate through voluntary auction). Therefore, CCC can only seek a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the funds for purchase of real estate against DDR, and cannot seek a return of the real estate itself. In addition, CCC does not have any ground to deem that CCC has the right to seek a transfer of ownership against the Defendants who acquired ownership through DD and EE under its own name.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that CCC has the right to file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer concerning each real estate of this case with the defendants is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.