지급지시에 의한 출연이 있는 경우의 부당이득반환청구와 3자간 등기명의신탁

This paper mainly focuses on whether there is an effect of the sales contract between the seller and the and on matter regarding the effect of change in a real right. it is mainly concerned with whether it can be admitted that the title may make a direct claim for return of the trust property toward the title trustee, or whether only the claim for reimbursement of the profits possible, etc. In order to draw an appropriate conclusion to these matters, I tried to examine the legal issues and relations regard to the effect of transfer of real estate rights in the kinds of instruction cases or the curtailed benefit among the unfair, excessive profits in a three way-concerned relation and the claim for return of unfair, excessive profits. When the effect is concerned, for instance, in case there is an absence, nullification, cancellation or withdrawal of instructions, the effect of instructed payment caused by the fact should not belong to the instructor. Thus, in principle, the direct claim of the instructed party is possible. Also, as long as regarding the legal cause for the possession of profits owned by the recipient in the instructed case, his or her profits do not meet the requirements for the good faith acquisition the only ground for the possession of profits is the receivables of the ordered party, and it is naturally to be determined in the relation between him and the ordering party. Therefore, if in any way there is a reimbursement effect of receivables in the compensational relations, the principle of relativity of receivables is partly restricted. So, it can function as the grounds for opposition to the direct claim of the ordered party. However, it is nothing but the grounds for opposition, so the direct claim is admitted if the order is not valid. even in the phase that the contract is settled between the parties in the contractual relation, it is fundamental that the principles of the law of contract are kept intact. So, in the ordered case, if the effect of receivables is invalidated in any one of causal relations, it is to be settled within the casual relations. Therefore, in order for the principles of law of contract not to be destroyed, the direct claim for return is not allowed even if there is still some interest with the third party in a substantial manner. if in the matter of abbreviation registration with middle man omitted among the cases of instruction, there is not a deficit in the compensational relation but a deficit only in the causal relation, in light of the causativeness principle regarding the transfer of a real right and the liabilities for risk of the contract or others in the current civil law, it can be said that the ownership should return to the seller. In the case of the registered title trust between third parties, it is not different from the legal relations in the abbreviated registration with the omitted as examined in the above case, in terms that it is also a matter of whereabouts of the ownership. Finally, title trust agreement is null and void in the case of causal relation in the registered title trust between third parties. There is no effect arising from the transfer of a real right. Therefore, if in the cases of payment by the order(instruction) to the immovable property(real estate) such as the registered title trust between the third parties, the causal relations are null and void, the ownership of the real properties should be understood as belonging to the first seller. Accordingly, the first seller as the owner of the should have the right to claim for return of a real right based on his ownership toward the title trustee. the title may exert his right to claim the return of the articles owned as an agent for the first seller against the title trustee on the basis of the right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership from the sales contract with the first seller. It can also be said that this interpretation corresponds to Article 4 in Act of Substantial Named Registration.