양자간 부동산명의신탁에서 수탁부동산의 처분과 횡령죄의 成否에 관한 고찰 - 대법원 2021. 2. 18. 선고 2016도18761 전원합의체 판결 - = Study on the constitution of criminal embezzlement when the trustee disposed of the trusted real estate by the title trust agreement

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The truster holds the real right to the real estate and benefits from it internally while the trustee registers the ownership under his/her name. Recently Korea’s Supreme Court ruled that even though the trustee disposed of the real estate trusted to him breaching the title trust contract, he can not be punished as criminal embezzlement changing the precedents in which the trustee could be criminally responsible under the same circumstance.
The title trust has been exploited as the means of real estate speculation, tax evasion, and the avoidance of compulsory execution while it is necessary for the socioeconomic purposes. Therefore, “Act on the registration of real estate under actual titleholder’s name”(hereafter “the Act”) was enacted to regulate the title trust which had revealed lots of socioeconomic, legal problems in the year 1995. According to the Act, any title trust agreement and any change in the real rights to any real estate by a registration made under the title trust agreement shall be null and void.
The Supreme Court Judgement(2021. 2. 18. 2016do18761 en banc, hereafter “the Judgement”) declared that the title trustee who disposed of the trusted real estate is not punishable as criminal embezzlement regardless of the type of the title trust. By the Judgement, the disposal of the trusted real estate by the trustee became free from the criminal responsibility for embezzlement or breach of duty while it could be punished as the breach of the Act.
The Judgement has the significant meaning in that it denied the constitution of the criminal embezzlement for the trustee and established the coherent theory which could be applied to criminal embezzlement and breach of duty as well by reassuring so-callled “the theory of trust relationship worth protection” The denial of the criminal responsibility for the trustee on the ground of the theory of trust relationship worth protection accords with the construction of the civil codes and the legislative intent of the Act.
In conclusion, the Judgement reached the appropriate conclusion in that it is faithful to the principle of ultima ration, subsidiarity and legality of the criminal punishment and solves the conflict of the legal theory between the civil and criminal law.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 문채규, "횡령죄의 주체와 부동산명의수탁자의 지위" 한국형사법학회 32 (32): 105-137, 2020

2 이재상, "형법각론" 박영사 2017

3 정성근, "형법각론" SKKUP 2019

4 이형국, "형법각론" 법문사 2019

5 이정원, "형법각론" 법지사 2000

6 박상기, "형법각론" 박영사 1999

7 배종대, "형법각론" 홍문사 2018

8 조기영, "재산범죄와 ‘보호할 가치 있는 신뢰관계’" 한국형사법학회 26 (26): 91-123, 2014

9 조현욱, "양자 간 명의신탁과 횡령죄" 한국비교형사법학회 20 (20): 111-132, 2018

10 박홍식, "수탁자의 수탁부동산 처분행위와 횡령죄" 제주판례연구회 1 : 1997

11 손동권, "새로운 형법각론" 율암출판사 2013

12 김일수, "새로 쓴 형법각론" 박영사 1999

13 김신, "부동산이 횡령죄의 행위객체에 포함되는가?" 한국비교형사법학회 22 (22): 343-364, 2020

14 정도영, "부동산실명법에 위반한 명의신탁과 횡령죄" 광주지방법원 1998

15 양창수, "부동산실명법 제4조에 의한 명의신탁의 효력 -소위 등기명의신탁을 중심으로-" 서울대 법학연구소 38 (38): 1997

16 박상기, "부동산명의신탁과 횡령죄" 박영사 (6) : 1998

17 박동진, "부동산명의신탁과 불법원인급여 ― 대법원 2019. 6. 20 선고 2013다218156 전원합의체 판결 ―" 법학연구원 30 (30): 1-35, 2020

18 송문호, "부동산 명의신탁의 형법상 의미와 전망" 한국형사법무정책연구원 27 (27): 1-22, 2016

19 곽윤직, "물권법" 박영사 2015

20 박광민, "명의신탁부동산의 임의처분행위에 대한 형사책임" 14 (14): 2002

21 손동권, "명의신탁부동산을 임의처분한 경우의 형사책임" (15) : 2001

22 천진호, "명의신탁부동산 처분행위의 형사책임" 4 (4): 2012

23 조충영, "명의신탁과 횡령죄에 관한 제 문제" 법학연구소 61 (61): 99-126, 2020

24 장병주, "명의신탁과 불법원인급여 성립 여부" 민사법의 이론과 실무학회 21 (21): 1-37, 2018

25 문영식, "명의신탁 부동산의 처분행위에 관한 형법정책" 대검찰청 (51) : 279-320, 2016

26 강동범, "등기명의신탁에서 신탁부동산의 임의처분과 횡령죄의 성부 - 대법원 2016. 5. 19. 선고 2014도6992 전원합의체 판결 -" 법조협회 65 (65): 601-620, 2016