In a relationship with the trustee under the claim contract, the truster may oppose the actual ownership of the immovable without registration.

The real estate title truster may oppose the real ownership of the real estate without registration in relation to the trustee under the claim contract.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 31 of the Trust Act

Magim Magim Ampha Magro

Defendant 1 and three others

Jeonju District Court Decision 71Na294 delivered on August 22, 1972

All of the defendants' appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The record shows that the principal lawsuit was filed by Nonparty 1 among the plaintiff's members, and that the Dong had been conducting the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff's members until the party members, so long as the original judgment is recognized that the Dong was the representative of the clan duly elected at the council of plaintiff's clans of April 26, 1972, even though it is not recognized that there was a defect in the plaintiff's act during the plaintiff's class by the Dong members before the election, the validity of the act was ratified by the Dong members after the above election, and therefore, the first issue of the theory of lawsuit on this point is groundless.

2. The title trust of the original real estate refers to the transfer of the title of the registration of the real estate owned by the truster to a trustee who has no real transactional relationship with the trustee in substance by the credit contract of the party with respect to the trust of the truster. As such, there is no reason to argue that, in relation to the trustee under the credit contract with the truster at any time, the truster may oppose the actual ownership of the real estate without registration, in other words, that the truster may oppose the actual ownership of the real estate.

3. The original judgment was based on the fact that the 1,499 square meters of the land in dispute was the upper part of the plaintiff's clans of the non-party 2's sixth line, and that the above land was reported by the non-party 3 of his father at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and there was no trace that the above land was about the two graves of the plaintiff's clans of the non-party 3. It is without merit that the above land exceeded the size of the restriction under the Farmland Reform Act.

4. In examining the records in detail, the original judgment was originally made in title trust with Defendant 3’s deceased father Nonparty 4, who was the Plaintiff’s deceased on July 4, 1936, and the above Defendant 3’s father was inherited to Defendant 5. However, when the missing at the time of the incident on June 25, 1956, it was impossible for Defendant 3 to know the Defendant’s life at the time of the accident, the above Defendant 3’s illegal means as stated in its reasoning, recognizing that the land was subject to the registration of transfer of ownership due to the inheritance to Australia as of August 20, 1956, there was no error of law as argued in No. 3.

5. According to the records, it is obvious that the plaintiff's claim for ownership transfer registration based on the cancellation of trust against the defendant non-party 5 (the above non-party 5 succeeded to the trustee's status) was accepted by the judgment of the court of first instance, and the judgment was limited because there was no appeal by the defendant, and the judgment was not limited. Thus, without any claim against the defendant, the plaintiff asserted the trust relationship with the above non-party 5 against the other defendants, and without any claim against the defendant, it was erroneous that the defendant claimed only cancellation of the ownership transfer registration under the name of each party, and there was no number of days.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 400, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu