이 글은 계약명의신탁에서 매도인이 악의인 경우, 수탁자가 신탁부동산을 제3자에게 임의처분하면 수탁자는 불법행위에 기한 손해배상책임을 부담하는가를 주요논점으로 다룬 논문이다. 이에 관하여 최초로 판시한 대법원 2013.9.12. 선고 2010다95185 판결에 의하면, 수탁자의 임의처분행위로 불법행위가 성립하지만 매도인은 그 부동산에 대한 소유명의를 회복하기 전까지는 이와 동시이행의 관계에 있는 매매대금 반환채무의 이행을 거절할 수 있어 계속 매매대금을 보유하므로 손해가 없어 매도인의 손해배상청구는 인정되지 않는다고 한다. 그러나 이러한 판례의 태도는 손해의 산정기준시를 처분시로 파악하는 손해배상책임의 일반이론 및 명의신탁의 억제를 목표로 하는 부동산실명법의 입법취지에 비추어 받아들이기 어렵다. 우선 손해의 산정기준시를 과거의 매매대금의 수령시로 소급하는 합리적 이유를 찾기 어렵다. 특히 매도인이 매매대금을 아직 받지 않았거나 수탁자에게 반환한 경우와 달리 취급하는 것은 형평에 반한다. 또한 매도인의 소유권침해를 이유로 한 손해배상청구에 대하여 수탁자의 매매대금반환청구가 현실적 인용가능성이 없다고 하여 바로 손해가 없다는 논거는 손해를 차액적 손해 외에 규범적 손해도 포함하여 파악하는 손해의 일반개념과도 부합하지 아니한다. 나아가 수탁자의 손해배상의무가 수탁자의 소유권이전등기의 말소둥기의무의 변형물로 보아서 위 손해배상의무와 매도인의 매매대금반환채무가 동시이행관계에 있다고 인정하더라도 부동산의 처분당시의 시가가 과거에 수령한 매매대금보다 다액인 경우 그 차액만큼 손해가 있는 것이다. 부동산 가격이 상승한 경우 수탁자의 처분행위로 매도인에게 손해가 발생하여 불법행위가 성립하고, 예외적으로 처분 당시의 시가가 매매대금과 동일한 경우에만 손해가 없어 불법행위가 성립하지 않는다고 보아야 한다. 수탁자는 부동산실명법에서 금지하는 불법인 명의신탁약정에 매도인보다 훨씬 더 깊숙이 가담한 자이고 타인의 소유권을 침해한 자일 뿐만 아니라 불법억제의 효과성 측면에서 보더라도 수탁자에게 위 차액을 귀속시키는 것은 타당하지 않다. 따라서 위 판례의 견해는 시정되어야 한다.

A legal purposes of ‘Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name’ and ‘Act on the real name financial transaction’-currently being implemented revised on November 29-reason for the amendment, and when you see ‘Real Estate Real Name Registration Act’ Article 3 paragraph 1, From the premise that change is invalid lend the name of the property to another person and its rights under the contract, a review is needed for the attitude of the Supreme Court judgment that character to keep the heir’s about the person registered as the owner of the property. In other words, between actual owners and heirs of the estate are kept relationship based on trust each other is not permitted. Therefore, even if the heir to the disposal of real estate or deny the return embezzlement is not true. And as others have to borrow the name agreement and its premise the No. 2 Article 8 of this law will see a change in the rights of a valid, If the spouse who is the spouse parties who trustee is a fiduciary relationship ended by killing, whether civil, even people who trustee and fiduciary arrangements remain in full force and effect between the heir to Article 187 of one trustee of a trust estate by acquiring the rights, the fiduciary relationship and analysis for the presence, And if you refuse to return the heirs of those who trustee on the basis of this judicial discretion, trustees who are required to take and interpret whether civil remedies in any way for the preservation of the property of the trust estate. Moreover, this interpretation is that the same legal principles to be applied even if the disappearance or death or divorce of a marriage partner relationships cancellation of either spouse. The Supreme Court has interpreted to establish a trust relationship for the heirs of the people who destroyed fiduciary trustees who have a partner relationship. However, as the interpretation of the Court of Appeals after a valid contract between the couple if the spouse who trust relationship has ended, In particular, because the people who trustee if the trustee is not recognized, the murder of people who trust relationship between the heirs and trustees who trustee, Even if the heirs of the people trustee disposes of the trust estate, or even arbitrarily refuse to return embezzlement is reasonable to interpret that which is not true.

Kann eine durch strafbare Handlung bereits zugeeignete Sache erneut zugeeignet werden? Im Schriftum wird nach dieser Frage überwiegend die Meinung vertreten, daß in einer wiederholten Betätigung des Herrschaftenswillen eine erneute Zueignung liegt, diese aber als mitbestrafte Nachtat gegenüber dem ersten Zueignungsakt zurücktritt. Straflose od. mitbestrafte Nachtat ist eine tatbestandsmäßige Handlung, die nicht bestraft wird, weil das Schwergewicht des Unrechts im Gesamtkomplex der Straftaten maßgeblich bei der bestraften Vortat liegt. Nach der alten Rechtsprechung des KorObGH sind die Voraussetzungen für die Straflosigkeit einer späteren (Zweit-)Zueignungsakt, daß der Täter in aller Regel auch die Nachtat begehen muß, wenn die erste (od. Haupt-)Tat für ihn einen Sinn haben soll. So ist, daß die Nachtat sich in der Auswertung od. Sicherung der durch die Vortat erlangten Position erschöpft, den schon angerichteten Schaden nicht wesentlich erweitert und kein neues Rechtsgut verletzt. Mit dem jüngeren Urteil 2010 Do 10500 des Großen Senates hat der Koreanichen Obersten Gerichtshof seine Meinung verändert. So geht er davon aus, daß in diesem Fall eine später wiederholte Zueignungsakt aber nicht als mitbestrafte Nachtat gegenüber dem ersten Zueignungsakt zurücktritt, sondern den selbständigen Zueignungstatbestand verwirklicht. Der maßgebliche Grund dafür ist, daß die Zweitzueignunstat sich in der Bewertung des durch die erste Vortat erlangten Unrechtsinhaltes nicht erschöpft, den schon angerichteten Schaden wesentlich erweitert und ein neues Rechtsgut verletzt. In diesem Aufsatz habe ich hingegen die andere Meinung herangezogen, die jeweils etwa an einer Normlogik des KorObGH orientiert wird. Seine Begründung miteinander hat aber m. E. keine Übereinstimmung in allen wesentlichen Punkten. Sie steht nicht Einklang mit seiner bisherigen Normlogik über das Wesen von Zueignungsakt, die Abgrenzung der Unterschalgung und Untreue, den Unterschied zwischen subjektivem Vorsatz und einer Zueignungswille (eine Zueignungsabsicht im Sinne von § 329 KorStGB (Diebstahl) ist hier nicht erforderlich).

Under article 4 section 3 of Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, the Real Estate Title Trustee can transfer validly the ownership of the in-title trust-given real estate from himself to a third person. Though section 1, 2 of this article provide the title trust agreement and the transfer of a real right to real estate (based on this agreement) shall be void, this act gives section 3 superiority over section 1, 2 to protect the right of a third person.From these provisions we can know that the title trustee becomes the custodian of the title truster's real estate in relation to a third person and is able to embezzle the in-title trust-given real estate. Therefore, if the title trustee does with the in-title trust-given real estate as he pleases, he embezzles the real estate of the title truster. The vendor is paid the price in full, and the duty of the vendor is regarded as fulfilled by article 4 section 3 of this act. So the vendor is never a victim.In this case(2009Do4501) the Supreme Court judges Gap(甲) didn't embezzle the property of Eul(乙). But it is proper that title trust between Gap(甲) and Eul(乙) is considered a kind of title trust between two persons, and Gap(甲) is judged to have embezzled the property of Eul(乙).