[1] The legal relationship in a case where a part of a parcel of land was transferred by specifying it, but a co-ownership registration has been made for convenience and the co-ownership registration has been made for the transfer of the specific part.

[2] The internal subject of ownership of the right arising from the ownership of the property held in title trust

[1] If a part of one parcel of land is assigned by specifying it and a co-ownership share registration has been made for convenience, it is valid as the registration of a trustee under mutual title trust. If the specific part is transferred entirely and the co-ownership share registration has been completed accordingly, the status of mutual title trust is succeeded to the status of the former transferor and the last transferee of the specific part, thereby establishing a title trust relationship between the former transferor and the latter.

[2] In the case of a title trust agreement, since the ownership of the subject matter is always owned by the truster in an internal relationship between the truster and the trustee, the rights arising in relation to the ownership of the subject matter also belong to the truster in its internal relationship.

[1] Article 103 of the Civil Code / [title trust] / [2] Article 103 of the Civil Code / [title trust]

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Meu14366 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1551) Supreme Court Decision 90Da20039 delivered on May 10, 1991 (Gong1992, 1603) 93Da42986 delivered on February 8, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 108) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 86Da2653 Delivered on May 12, 1987 (Gong1987, 968) (Gong196Ha, 2009)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and six others (Attorney Kim C-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na9650 delivered on July 28, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below found that it is reasonable to view that the title trust relationship has been established between the parties with respect to the land portion 80 m2 and the land portion 808 m2 and the land portion 2 of this case, which the plaintiff did not sell the land of this case as at the time when the registration of ownership transfer was completed to the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the defendant 5, the defendant 4, the defendant 3, the deceased non-party 2, the non-party 3 and the non-party 4, and that the land of this case was not divided on the register, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or presumption of presumption of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence as to the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground to hold that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of facts or presumption of presumption of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence.

2. On the second ground for appeal

If a part of the land is assigned by specifying and completing a co-ownership registration on the whole part for convenience, it is valid as the registration of a trustee under mutual title trust. If the above specific part is transferred by transfer and the co-ownership share registration is completed accordingly, the status of mutual title trust is succeeded to the status of the former transferor and the last transferee of the said specific part, thereby establishing a title trust relationship between the former transferor and the latter (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Da14366, Jun. 26, 1990; 90Da20039, May 10, 1991).

In the same purport, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, in determining that the title trust relationship between the plaintiff, the first transferor, and the last transferee of each specific part of the land No. 1 of this case, and between the defendant 1, the defendant (appointed party) 7, and the selector Nonparty 5, constitutes a title trust relationship. There

3. On the third ground for appeal

In the case of a title trust agreement, the ownership of the subject matter is always owned by the truster in the internal relationship between the truster and the trustee. Thus, the rights arising in relation to the ownership of the subject matter should be attributed to the truster in its internal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Da2653, May 12, 1987; 94Da35985, May 31, 1996).

The court below's decision that the plaintiff and the title trustee, the defendant 1, the defendant 3, the defendant 5, the defendant 7 (appointed party), the appointed party, the defendant 6, the non-party 5, the non-party 6, the non-party 7, and the non-party 8 in the decision of the court below held on January 7, 1993 that the claim for compensation for damages for the ancient city based on the acquisition of the public land by agreement on January 7, 1993 was made against the plaintiff, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. In the case where the title trustee disposes of the entrusted real estate to a third party, the judgment of party members cited in the theory of lawsuit is that the title truster cannot claim the ownership of the third party on the ground that it is the real estate trusted in the title trust, and thus it is inappropriate

4. All appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)