양자간 부동산명의신탁에서 수탁부동산의 처분과 횡령죄의 成否에 관한 고찰 - 대법원 2021. 2. 18. 선고 2016도18761 전원합의체 판결 -

양자간 부동산명의신탁의 처분과 횡령죄 성립 여부를 살펴보았다.

The truster holds the real right to the real estate and benefits from it internally while the trustee registers the ownership under his/her name. Recently Korea’s Supreme Court ruled that even though the trustee disposed of the real estate trusted to him breaching the title trust contract, he can not be punished as criminal embezzlement changing the precedents in which the trustee could be criminally responsible under the same circumstance. The title trust has been exploited as the means of real estate speculation, tax evasion, and the avoidance of compulsory execution while it is necessary for the socioeconomic purposes.

Therefore, “Act on the registration of real estate under actual titleholder’s name”(hereafter “the Act”) was enacted to regulate the title trust which had revealed lots of socioeconomic, legal problems in the year 1995. According to the Act, any title trust agreement and any change in the real rights to any real estate by a registration made under the title trust agreement shall be null and void. The Supreme Court Judgement(2021. 2. 18. 2016do18761 en banc, hereafter “the Judgement”) declared that the title trustee who disposed of the trusted real estate is not punishable as criminal embezzlement regardless of the type of the title trust.

By the Judgement, the disposal of the trusted real estate by the trustee became free from the criminal responsibility for embezzlement or breach of duty while it could be punished as the breach of the Act.

The Judgement has the significant meaning in that it denied the constitution of the criminal embezzlement for the trustee and established the coherent theory which could be applied to criminal embezzlement and breach of duty as well by reassuring so-callled “the theory of trust relationship worth protection” The denial of the criminal responsibility for the trustee on the ground of the theory of trust relationship worth protection accords with the construction of the civil codes and the legislative intent of the Act.

In conclusion, the Judgement reached the appropriate conclusion in that it is faithful to the principle of ultima ration, subsidiarity and legality of the criminal punishment and solves the conflict of the legal theory between the civil and criminal law.