名義信託에 관한 法理的 考察 : 「不動産實權利者名義登記에 관한 法律」을 中心으로 = (A) theoretical Analysis of the Custom of Real Estate Nominal Trust : Focused on the Act forcing the Registration of Real Name

부동산 명의신탁의 법리와 부동산실명등기법을 고찰한다.

The purpose of the above thesis is to study the theoretical structure of the so to say Nominal Trust on real estate(Myonguisintak) and to interprete the new act : Real Estate-Real Name Registration Act (Budongsan Silmyongbop) regulating this practice. According to the practice since japanese occupation of Korean peninsular, the Nominal Trust has been very often used. This practice came into being, for at that time there were no specified way for the properties of family name associations, especially lands with shrine, rice peds for memorial ceremony etc. to be registered. Such real estates were allowed by the courts to be filed in the name of one or more of family members.

At first, I handled the theoretical arguments on validity of nominal trust. Rules of supreme court admitted the practice as valid. On the base of court rule there have been a lot of nominal trust registrations. The supreme court describes the practice as the so to say "relative ownership theory", which explains the legal status of nominal trust makes the trustor real owner and the trustee nominal owner. In the relation with the other persons than the parties of nominal trust, as the court describes, the title of the real estate stays by the trustee as the estopel shows. This custom and practice became, then, the most popular way to disguise corrupt transaction of property from the public.

Also, he who would like to escape from tax the nominal trust has been very often used, not with saying real estate speculation. Furthermore, this practice is hardly to harmonize with the rule(numerus clausus of rights on things : Sachenrechte) of Korean Civil Code, which prohibits any other type of interest on things than the code prescribes. So, the government established and promulgated the Real Name Registration Act for extermination of the Nominal Trust practice. But the Act has been critisized as it has many problems because it was established without deliberation, for only one purpose of prohibit of nominal trust practice in short time.

In this thesis, 1 investigated some law that was established for regulation of the Nominal Trust. There are the Real Name Registration Act, the Act of Taxes, and the Act of Registry of Real Property. According to the new law the nominal trust on real estate is not valid any longer. Registrations of nominal trust should be in certain period corrected to a real name. In chapter 4 and 5 I examined and analyzed the content of The Real Estate-Real Name Registration Act and then evaluated the opinions arguing the new act. But, it can be so concluded: Nominal Trust is no more effective, although it is confronted against the private autonomy.

Since the act on the real estate real name registration(The Real Estate-Real Name Registration Act) was enacted and promulgated, arguments on the validity of nominal trust should be terminated. What to do further, is to observe the enactment of new law and to find any problem. Courts decesions are also should be evaluated with objective eyes on real development of situation of transformation of nominal trust into real names. Opinions arguing the new law are difficult to agree for the time being, because, they would run beyond the limit of interpretation of given act.

목차 제 1 장 서 론 = 1 제1절 연구목적과 연구배경 = 1 제2절 연구대상과 연구방법 = 2 제3절 논문의 구성 = 3 제 2 장 명의신탁의 기초이론 = 5 제1절 신탁 = 5 제2절 명의신탁의 의의와 배경 = 8 1. 명의신탁의 의의 = 8 2. 명의신탁관행의 배경 = 11 제3절 명의신탁의 활용범위 = 14 1. 종중재산의 명의신탁 = 14 2. 일필지중 일부매수와 전필지에 대한 소유권이전등기 = 16 3. 일필지중 특정부분 매수와 공유지분등기 = 17 4. 귀속재산의 매수 및 불하 = 17 5. 농지의 명의신탁 = 18 6. 사찰재산의 명의신탁 = 19 7. 자동차.항공기.선박.건설기계 등의 명의신탁 = 19 제4절 명의신탁의 성립요건과 유형 = 20 1. 성립요건 = 20 2. 명의신탁의 유형 = 24 3. 명의신탁 유형에 따른 법률관계 = 31 제5절 명의신탁의 유효성에 관한 법리 = 37 1. 판례의 이론 = 38 2. 명의신탁에 대한 학설 = 46 3. 비판과 사견 = 51 4. 명의신탁의 악용예와 규제 = 54 제 3 장 부동산실명법의 내용 = 59 제1절 법률의 개관 = 59 1. 제정배경 = 59 2. 내용개요 = 62 제2절 부동산실명법의 적용범위 = 63 1. 명의신탁의 유형 = 63 2. 장기 미등기의 경우 = 66 3. 적용이 배제되는 경우 = 66 제3절 실권리자 명의의 등기의무 = 67 1. 원칙 = 67 2. 명의신탁약정의 사법적 무효 = 67 3. 명의신탁약정의 무효와 제3자에 대한 효력 = 74 4. 위반에 대한 제재 = 77 5. 종중 및 배우자에 대한 특례 = 85