계약명의신탁에서 수탁자의 신탁부동산 대물변제의 효력

In a contract title trust to which the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name applies, when the other party to the title trustee has acted in good faith, the title trust agreement is null and void, but the registration and changes in real rights are valid. In this case the title truster may demand the return of unjust enrichment against the title trustee, and it is the established position of judicial precedent and leading opinion that the object of the demand is not the trust real estate but the purchase-price which the truster provided. If the trustee of the contract title trust agrees with the truster to transfer the trust real estate itself in lieu of performance of his duty to return the purchase-price to the truster, and based on said agreement completes the registration of ownership transfer to the truster, the issue becomes whether such registration and the changes in ownership are valid. The decision being analyzed recognizes its validity on certain conditions. In other words, such registration of ownership transfer is conditional upon the complete acquisition of ownership of the trustee and is valid provided that there are no other special circumstances such as it being merely an ex post correction to a null and void title trust agreement. This decision is the first to state on the Supreme Court level that under the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the title trustee’s return of the unjust enrichment in the amount of the purchase-price to the truster and the accord and satisfaction in lieu of its performance is an interrelated issue but still a separate one that requires independent judgement, and as such will be able to function as a leading case on similar matters in the future.