신탁법 제4조 제1항(2011. 7. 25. 법률 제10924호로 전부 개정되어 2012. 7. 26. 시행)의 의미와 신탁등기의 대항력 범위

The main issue of the subject case concerns whether, in a case involving a collateral trust over a condominium building that is subject to Article 4(1) of the Trust Act, the trustee may contest against a third party’s claim for management fees where the contents of the trust contract that the trustor shall be responsible for the payment of management fees are recorded in the trust register. Article 3(1) of the former Trust Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10924, Jul. 25, 2011) stipulated that “with respect to any right to property to be registered, the trust may be opposable to a third person by making a registration thereof.” In contrast, Article 4(1) of the Trust Act, wholly amended by Act No. 10924 as of Jul. 25, 2011 and enforced on July 26, 2012, prescribes that “with respect to any property right that can be registered, the fact that the property belongs to trust property may contest against a third person by completing a registration thereof.” In other words, there are significant differences in language and text in that Article 3(1) of the former Trust Act stated that “the trust” may be opposable to a third person, while Article 4(1) of the current Trust Act states that “the fact that the property belongs to trust property” may contest against a third person. In cases that are subject to Article 3(1) of the former Trust Act, existing precedents, by viewing that when the contents of the trust contract were recorded in the trust register recognized as part of the trust registration, the trustee may contest against a third party, determined that where “the contents of the trust contract that the trustor shall be responsible for the payment of management fees” are recorded in the trust register, the trustee may contest against a third party’s claim for management fees. The subject case, clarifying for the first time that Article 4(1) of the current Trust Act means that “matters concerning the composition of trust property” may be opposable to a third person through trust registration, determined that even if the contents of the trust contract that the trustor shall be responsible for the payment of management fees are recorded in the trust register, the trustee cannot contest against a third party’s claim for management fees. However, the subject case did not lead to a change in existing precedents regarding cases that are subject to the former Trust Act, which can be seen as the result of considering the following matters such as the differences in language and text between Article 3(1) of the former Trust Act and Article 4(1) of the current Trust Act, as well as legal stability and the practical benefits of changing existing precedents. The subject case enabled disputes to be resolved in a unified and predictable manner by clarifying the practical confusion surrounding the scope of the opposability of trust registration before and after the amendment of the Trust Act.