[1] Whether a title trust relationship can be recognized even in cases where a person who is named as a title trustee holds a document related to legal relations, such as a registration certificate (affirmative with qualification)

[2] The case holding that although a person who is referred to as a title trustee holds a registration certificate, real estate in dispute was held under title trust in light of the overall circumstances

[1] The title trust is a contract established by the agreement between the parties. Such a contract may be concluded explicitly, explicitly and explicitly. The recognition of the title trust fact is a matter of fact-finding, and if certain evidence or facts exist as a matter of fact-finding, it does not necessarily necessarily require the recognition of the title trust, or it does not necessarily require the recognition thereof. In general, in a case where only the title of real estate is trusted to another person, where only the title of real estate is owned by the title truster, the actual owner of the document proving the relationship of rights, such as the registration certificate, is not necessarily deemed to be a title trust. However, the title trustee does not necessarily have to recognize that the title trustee

[2] The case holding that the land in dispute is held in title trust in light of the following: although the title trustee has kept the certificate of right to the land and paid the aggregate land tax and the farmland improvement association expenses and created an orchard in charge of the expenses, the purchase price of the claimed is considerably less than the publicly announced land price at the time, and there is no persuasive power in his claim for purchase, and the heir has promised to complete the registration of ownership transfer to the title truster, there is a lack of demand for the payment for over-source management, and there is a lack of preparation of a sales contract by making a purchase proposal

[1] Article 103 of the Civil Act / [title trust] Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 103 of the Civil Act / [title trust], Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da6858 decided Apr. 25, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 1284)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and five others

Gwangju District Court Decision 2000Na1200 delivered on December 14, 2000

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the registration of transfer of ownership was made under the name of the deceased non-party 1 on May 25, 1990 with respect to the land originally owned by the co-defendant of the first instance court, and the above deceased on September 8, 1996, the Defendants inherited the remaining Defendants, who were his wife, and their offsprings. Defendant 1, 2, and 3, on June 16, 1997, completed the registration of transfer on the ground of the division of the inherited property as of September 8, 1996, on the ground that the above land was purchased from the co-defendant of the first instance court on May 12, 1990, and the Plaintiff’s No. 1 to the above co-defendant of the first instance court on the ground that it was impossible to obtain the qualification certificate of transfer of ownership, and thus, the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 4, No. 7, No. 94, and No. 9, No. 7, No.

2. However, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are doubtful in the following respects:

A. First of all, the court below determined that the evidence consistent with the above point of view is insufficient to believe that the title trust is a title trust, and based on the remaining evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 2 (Registration Right Certificate), Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 through 7 (each taxation document of aggregate land tax), Eul evidence No. 4-1, 2 (each receipt), Eul evidence Nos. 4-3, 4-4 (each receipt), and Eul evidence No. 7 (Book). The above deceased's custody of the registration right of the above land, while paying farmland improvement association expenses and developing orchard with the above land cost. However, if the title trust is established by the agreement between the parties to the contract and the remaining evidence, it is doubtful that the title trust is not a title trust or the above 20-party title trust right of the deceased's acquisition of the above land without any specific evidence or fact-finding, and it is questionable that the title trust or the above 20-party title trust is not a title trust or the above 20-party title trust right of the deceased's.

B. Following the court below's rejection of the above facts. The plaintiff was confirmed to have sold the above land to the plaintiff 10, and the plaintiff was unable to obtain verification of the farmland office at the time of Gyeongginam. The plaintiff asserted that the land price at the time was 2,782,00 won, and that the plaintiff purchased 17,00 won, and that the plaintiff's assertion was much persuasive. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's sale price was 9,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 70,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 70,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the plaintiff's 7,000 won for the above 9,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 9,000.

C. Therefore, the court below rejected the evidence that corresponds to the plaintiff's assertion in light of the evidence of the plaintiff's assertion without any reasonable ground, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim of this case in this case by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence as to the selection of the preparation of evidence, thereby having affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)