담보로 제공된 명의신탁 승용차를 몰래 가져간 명의신탁자의 형사책임

Title truster gave the car which he had bought in title trust and offered it to his creditor as security. One day title truster carried away the car before his creditor knew. The Supreme Court ruled that title truster’s act constituted theft because the car’s owner was title trustee externally(2010Do11771). But title truster’s creditor was not the man, “the third” who entered into a connection with title trustee on the ground that on the basis that title trustee was the owner of the car. There was not external relation of title trust in this case. So title truster having real rights about the car was to be the owner of the car. Therefore the act of title truster should constitute obstruction of exercise of his creditor’s right. This paper consists as follows. [Decision] Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11771 decided April 26, 2012[Study]Ⅰ. Issue raising Ⅱ. The owner of title trust object according to the title trust theory Ⅲ. The owner of title trust object according to the legal interest Ⅳ. Criminal responsibility of title truster Gap(甲)Ⅴ. Epilogue