earticle

영어

Because of the real name policy law for the real estate, when a trustee has concluded a contract as an interested party with a good faith seller and completed the registration of the transfer of the ownership of the land, trusty agreement between a truster and trustee is void but the trustee gain the valid ownership according to sub-section 1 of section 4 of the real name policy law for the real estate. The trustee merely is in charge of returning an unjust enrichment equivalent to the price of the land instead of the land itself. If the trusty agreement contract, however, had been concluded before the enforcement of the real name policy law for the real estate and the trustee concluded a contract as an interested party with a good faith buyer and completed the registration of the transfer of the ownership of the land, the trustee externally purchase the valid the ownership of the land. Therefore, in spite of the period of the grace of the real name policy law for the real estate to lead people to register their real name, if they don't register and the period is over, the trusty agreement is void and also the trustee should return the land itself to the truster as an unjust enrichment. Because the truster pays the price of the land according to the trusty agreement and the truster purchases the ownership of the land so the truster can terminate the agreement and ask for the transfer of the ownership of the land. This is the attitude Supreme court precedents. However, like the court judgment in the study, trusty agreement has been concluded and the trustee concludes the contract with a good faith seller but the trustee can't have the land registered in the name of the truster because of the legal barrier, the trustee can't gain the valid ownership of the land, at the same time, the trusty agreement itself becomes void as the period of grace of the real name policy law of real estate is over. As a result of that, the trustee have to return not the land itself but the price of the land given by the truster. Because, the trustee has never gained the ownership of the land. For that reason, the court judgment in the study is consistent with the precedents of the Supreme court of Korea.