[1] In a case where a title trustee, who has acquired the title of ownership of real estate pursuant to the title trust agreement, acquires the ownership of the real estate after the grace period under Article 11 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, whether the title truster is obligated to return the real estate acquired by him/her to unjust enrichment (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that in case where Eul et al. received compensation from Byung who is the heir of Eul after being expropriated after the title trust with Eul et al., Eul et al., on July 1, 1996, when the grace period under Article 11 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name expired, Eul et al. bears the obligation to return unjust enrichment to Gap Village Association instead of acquiring real estate ownership, and ten years have elapsed from that time, Eul's extinctive prescription was suspended by recognizing Eul's ownership of the above real estate before the expiration

[1] Articles 4, 11, and 12(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name; Articles 162(1), 166, 168, and 741 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 4, 11, and 12(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name; Articles 162(1), 166, and 168 subparag. 3, and 741 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2009Da23313 decided July 9, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1430)

Inter-dong Village Association

Defendant

Busan High Court Decision 201Na8683 decided May 3, 2012

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where the title trustee acquired the ownership of real estate in accordance with the title trust agreement prior to the enforcement of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), the title trustee is obligated to return the pertinent real estate acquired by himself/herself to the title truster instead of unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da23313, Jul. 9, 2009). The title truster’s right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the title trustee is a claim for the return of unjust enrichment and its nature is the claim for the return of unjust enrichment, and the general principles on the extinctive prescription of claims are applied.

2. A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, ① the instant real estate as indicated in the judgment of the court below was owned by the Plaintiff’s village. The Plaintiff’s meeting held on March 2, 1968 at the Plaintiff’s Development Committee’s meeting on March 12, 2003, held on title trust by transferring the ownership of the instant real estate under the name of 13 trustee (hereinafter “the instant trustee”). ② The instant real estate continues to be held in the name of the trustee after July 1, 1996 when the grace period under Article 11 of the Real Estate Real Name Act has expired, and was expropriated as the site of the Chuncheon Park created at Yangsan-si around November 1, 2008. The Defendant, one of the deceased Nonparty’s successors among the instant trustees, received compensation KRW 17,710,510,000 from the time of receipt of compensation, ③ The Plaintiff’s consent to the development and disposition of the instant real estate at the Plaintiff’s development Committee and the village development committee.

B. Examining the above legal principles and the records in light of the above facts, the trustee of this case bears the duty to return the real estate of this case to the plaintiff in unjust enrichment from July 1, 1996 upon the expiration of the above grace period, instead of acquiring full ownership, and the ten-year extinctive prescription shall run from that time. However, as long as the deceased non-party recognized the Plaintiff’s ownership of the real estate of this case as of November 12, 2003 clearly known as the previous transfer of the extinctive prescription period, it is reasonable to view that the extinctive prescription was interrupted due to the fact that it constitutes one of the causes for the interruption of extinctive prescription under Article 168 of the Civil Act.

C. Therefore, the lower court’s determination that recognized the Defendant’s obligation to return unjust enrichment and did not recognize the completion of the extinctive prescription thereof is justifiable in its conclusion. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the coercion of the Real Estate Real Name Act or the recognition of obligations, and even if the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of the application of Article 8 of the Real Estate Real Name Act

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)