Whether a title trust agreement and a change in real rights pursuant thereto are valid in cases where a person who registered under the name of his/her spouse prior to the enforcement of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, but was divorced within one year from the final and conclusive date of the litigation on the real right to real estate, which was brought during the grace period

As a title trust registration made before the enforcement of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, a truster and a trustee were in the relationship with his/her spouse at the time of the enforcement of the same Act, and as long as the truster cannot be deemed to have held a title trust for the purpose of evading any tax, evading any compulsory execution, or evading any statutory restrictions, even though the truster has made a judicial divorce within one year from the date on which the judgment on the merits of the dispute over the real right to real estate filed during the grace period under Article 11 of the same Act became final and conclusive, and did not make a real name registration under his/

Article 4, Article 8 subparag. 2, and Article 11 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name.

Applicant (Attorney White-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Respondent

Daegu High Court Decision 2000Na6897 delivered on May 18, 2001

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the purport of the relevant provisions of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), even though the existing title trust registration made in the name of spouse prior to the enforcement of the Act was obligated to make the actual name registration within a certain grace period as stipulated under Article 11 of the Act, but it was not made within the grace period in violation of this provision, the title trust agreement and any change in real right to real estate pursuant thereto still remains effective after the expiration of the grace period. Therefore, the court below held that the registration in the name of applicant for one-half portion of the real estate listed in the attached list in the decision in this case is a title trust registration in the name of spouse made prior to the enforcement of the Act, which was made under the title trust registration in the name of spouse before the enforcement of the Act, and since the respondent cannot be deemed to have been in title trust for the purpose of evading tax evasion, evading compulsory execution, or evading statutory restrictions, and even if the respondent did not make a change in the title registration within one year after the judgment became final and conclusive, the court below's judgment did not err in the legal principles and the real name registration and the ground for appeal.

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 Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)