부동산명의신탁과 불법원인급여 ― 대법원 2019. 6. 20 선고 2013다218156 전원합의체 판결 ― = Can Title Trust Agreement regarding Real Estate be seen as Performance for Illegal Cause?

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

I have participated as an expert witness in a recent Korean Supreme Court case (hereinafter referred to as the “Case”) related to the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). This paper reviews the Case.
The main issue of the Case was whether a title trust agreement regarding real estate which was made in violation of the Act can be seen as the “illegal cause” under Article 746 of the Korean Civil Code, and therefore whether the trustee can invoke the illegality defense against the trustor’s claim to void the title transfer registration of the real estate under the trust agreement.
The Korean courts had consistently held that Article 746 cannot be applied under such situation, meaning that the title trustee cannot invoke the illegality defense when the title trustor attempts to void the registration under the title trust agreement. In this Case, the Supreme Court decided that now is the time to re-examine this issue by an en banc hearing as twenty years have passed since the Act was enacted. The Supreme Court confirmed the long-held position of Korean courts.
This paper looked favorably on the holding of the Supreme Court for the following reasons. First, consideration of the various provisions of the Act including Article 5(on penalty), Article 6(on fee to force performance), and Article 7(on the criminal sanctions) is thought to lead to the conclusion that the Act evidently presupposes that the title over the trusted real estate belongs to the trustor, not the trustee. Secondly, title trust agreement cannot be seen as an “illegal cause” under the Article 746 of the Korean Civil Code. The position that such agreement is an illegal cause argues that since such agreement violates the Article 103 of the Korean Civil Code on the treatment of legal acts violating public policy, such agreement becomes an illegal cause. However, the two provisions are not the same in the policy goals they pursue, which suggests that Article 103 cannot be invoked as the ground to decide whether an agreement is an illegal cause under the Article 746. Thirdly, it is in violation of the Korean Constitution to allow the title trustee to use the illegality defense because it will result in the title trustor's property right being violated without any compensation. Fourthly and lastly, it is unjust to allow the trustee to hold the ownership title over the property in which he, too, was illegally involved.
For the above-mentioned reasons, this paper concludes that the holding of the Case is appropriate.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 허영, "헌법이론과 헌법(상)" 박영사 1983

2 전광석, "한국헌법론" 집현재 2019

3 최금숙, "한국민법이론의 발전(이영준박사 화갑기념 논문집)" 박영사 1999

4 여하윤, "프랑스 민법상의 불법원인급여(exception d'indignité)" 한국재산법학회 34 (34): 117-145, 2017

5 민중기, "주석민법 채권각칙(5)" 한국사법행정학회 2016

6 권오창, "주석민법 물권(2)" 한국사법행정학회 2000

7 강경구, "주석민법 물권(2)" 한국사법행정학회 2019

8 정상현, "이른바 반사적 소유권취득론 의 재검토" 51 (51): 2002

9 진도왕, "영국법상의 불법원인급여제도 적용기준" 한국민사법학회 79 : 77-119, 2017

10 박재혁, "실명거래위반행위와 불법원인급여" 사법발전재단 1 (1): 115-163, 2010

11 김형배, "사무관리 부당이득" 박영사 2003

12 정상현, "불법원인급여제도론" 영남대출판부 2002

13 박병대, "불법원인급여의 판단기준에 관한 구조분석" 2003

14 추신영, "불법원인급여에 대한 비판적 검토" 법학연구소 50 (50): 281-311, 2015

15 명순구, "불법원인급여에 관한 민법 제746조의 규범의미" 16 : 1997

16 문흥수, "불법원인급여규정의 의의 및 적용범위" 45 (45): 1996

17 재정경제, "부동산실명제 백서" 재정경제원 1997

18 박동진, "부동산실명법 제4조에 의한 부동산명의신탁의 효력" 32 (32): 1999

19 양창수, "부동산실명법 제4조에 의한 명의신탁의 효력 소위 등기명의신탁을 중심으로-" 박영사 5 : 1999

20 목영준, "부동산실권리자명의등기에관한법률상 명의신탁약정의 효력" 21 : 1999

21 양천수, "부동산명의신탁" 영남대학교 출판부 2010

22 오시영, "부동산 명의신탁과 불법원인급여 성립 여부에 대한 고찰" 동북아법연구소 10 (10): 451-487, 2016

23 권영준, "부당이득에 관한 민법개정안 연구" 법학연구소 55 (55): 149-191, 2014

24 송덕수, "민법학논총(후암곽윤직선생 고회기념논문집) 제2권" 박영사 1985

25 박병대, "민법주해 XVII" 박영사 2005

26 최병조, "로마법상의 불법원인급여" 30 (30): 1989

27 김민중, "농지임대차와 불법원인급여 - 대법원 2017. 3. 15. 선고 2013다79887, 79894 판결 -" 법조협회 66 (66): 580-615, 2017

28 정상현, "名義信託約定의 效力과 信託財産의 返還與否에 대한 法理 再檢討" 법학연구원 19 (19): 145-182, 2007