2017년 부동산 담보신탁의 주요 판례의 분석 = An Analysis Korean Courts’ Cases on the Collateral Trust of Real Estate

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

We analyzed and reviewed two major cases related to collateral trust in 2017.
The first case is the decision of the supreme court on the nature of the priority beneficial interest of collateral trust. It is a trust for the purpose of preserving the trust property in order to guarantee the fulfillment of the obligation borne by the trustee.
A collateral trust mainly refers to a form that is a combination of a trust for others interest or a trust for others interest and a trust for own interest. Since there is no definite concept of collateral trust in the past, the concept of collateral as a security collateral and collateral trust as a financial investment product have been mixed.
Through this judgment, it was confirmed that the priority beneficial interest of the collateral trust is a separate right in the trust contract with the collateral function apart from the loan receivable. Therefore, in this review, the concept of the collateral trust, the nature of the priority beneficiary interest, the meaning of the precedent, and how to deal with the case where the beneficial interest in the future exists independently of the loan.
The second case is the decision of the Supreme Court on the value-added tax of trust assets. In the case of the present case, taxpayers were defined by separating the trust for own interest from the trust for others interest in relation to the VAT. In the case of the trust for own interest, the taxpayers of the VAT were also regarded as trusters, and in the case of the trust for others interest, the taxpayers were regarded as beneficiaries.
The amended case is based on the characteristic that the VAT is a transaction tax. Therefore, the taxpayer of the VAT is regarded as the trustee. However, in relation to this, it is thought that the burden of the trustee, the moral hazard of the truster, and the time of application of the decision will become a problem as the trustee becomes a taxpayer.
In the revised bill of the government's VAT Act in 2017, the trustee's name on the trust property is regarded as the goods supplied by the trustee, but if the trustee is behind the VAT on the trust property, the trustee shall be liable for the supplementary tax liability As a result of the court's judgment on the collateral trust in 2017, more and more judgments were drawn on the independent nature of the trust relationship and in response, the expectation for the role of the trust as an independent indirect investment organization has increased.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 안성포, "채권금융기관에 의한 담보신탁의 활용" 한국증권법학회 13 (13): 293-319, 2012

2 광장신탁법연구회, "주석신탁법" 박영사 2013

3 정희남, "신탁활성화 방안 연구" 국토연구원

4 가정준, "신탁인 듯 신탁 아닌 ‘부동산담보신탁’" 법학연구소 36 (36): 553-574, 2016

5 금융감독원, "신탁업법 해설"

6 송동진, "신탁부동산의 관리처분과 부가가치세 납부의무자"

7 서순성, "신탁부동산의 관리ㆍ처분과 부가가치세 납세의무자- 대법원 2017. 5. 18. 선고 2012두22485 전원합의체 판결 -" 법조협회 66 (66): 531-573, 2017

8 유재관, "신탁법실무" 법률출판사 2008

9 이연갑, "신탁법상 수익자 보호의 법리" 경인문화사 2014

10 법무부, "신탁법개정안 해설"

11 이재욱, "신탁법 해설" 한국사법행정학회 2000

12 최동식, "신탁법" 법문사 2006

13 김성균, "신탁관계에 있어서의 부가가치세 납세의무자 - 대법원 2017. 5. 18. 선고 2012두22485 전원합의체 판결 -" 법학연구원 41 (41): 311-337, 2017

14 김상용, "부동산담보신탁제도개발의 필요성과 법적 문제점 검토" 5 : 1992

15 이정선, "부동산담보신탁에서 수익권의 법적 성질" 한국재산법학회 34 (34): 197-230, 2017

16 양진섭, "부동산담보신탁에 관한 소고" 2012

17 최수정, "부동산담보신탁상 우선수익권의 성질과 우선수익권질권의 효력 - 대법원 2017. 6. 22. 선고 2014다225809 전원합의체 판결을 계기로 -" 대한변호사협회 (470) : 40-59, 2017

18 김현, "부가가치세는 누가" 65 (65): 2017

19 임채웅, "담보신탁의 연구" 대한변호사협회 (378) : 115-132, 2008

20 법률연구회, "新부동산신탁법 실무" 법률정보센터 2013

21 新井誠, "信託法" 전남대학교 출판부 2011

22 "2017년 부동산신탁회사 영업실적(잠정)"