Since title trust agreement is invalid cause of violating of ‘the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name’, it has always been the subject of legal disputes whether the registration is regarded as the performance f...

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A109467668
2021
-
0
KCI등재후보
학술저널
74-113(40쪽)
0
상세조회0
다운로드다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)
Since title trust agreement is invalid cause of violating of ‘the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name’, it has always been the subject of legal disputes whether the registration is regarded as the performance f...
Since title trust agreement is invalid cause of violating of ‘the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name’, it has always been the subject of legal disputes whether the registration is regarded as the performance for illegal cause.
The existing legal rule has been sustained by a long-term precedent, it is that “It cannot be concluded that the registration is not regarded as the performance for illegal cause only because it was registered in the name of the title trustee in violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name”.
On the contrary, criticism has been raised by academics that the transfer of registration under the title trust agreement is the performance for illegal cause, so that the title truster cannot exercise the right to claim the return of the trust property, and that the trust property is attributed to the title trustee due to its reflective effect.
In addition, it has the following problems structurally, ① whether the title trustee who arbitrarily disposes of the trust property is punished by embezzlement, ② the issue of restoration of title trust in litigation for cancellation of act that does harm the creditor of the title truster, ③ the question of who is imposed on the trust property acquisition tax in accordance with the principle of actual taxation.
In order to judge the decision to change the existing precedent, the Supreme Court shall refer it to the consensus, and listen to the opinions of various fields on February 20, 2019. Finally, the majority opinion(9persons) reaffirmed the validity of the conventional precedent, and the dissenting opinion(4persons) now requires a judicial decision to eradicate the title trust.
In this paper, I would like to examine the possibility that the court can judge the title trust as the performance for illegal cause, taking into account specific circumstances such as the motive and purpose of the title trust, with the legislative improvement according to the changed reality of society.
개정 데이터 3법 시대의 데이터 주권에 관한 소고 - GDPR과의 비교를 중심으로 -
피승계인이 잔존하는 권리승계형 승계참가의 구조와 합일확정의 필요성
신탁수익권 압류의 효력범위 - 대법원 2018. 12. 27. 선고 2018다237329 판결에 대한 검토를 중심으로 -