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.

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).

In case that a consignee who had pledged a mortgage over the realty under consignment agreement, places the same realty under the mortgage again or sells it to the 3rd party, the first mortgage constitutes an embezzlement. Then, can the second mortgage or the sales in the above transaction can constitute another embezzlement ? The Supreme Court ruling regards the second mortgage or sales in the forementioned example as unpunishable post-activities, which accordingly cannot constitute an embezzlement again. However, as the second action satisfies all the requirements of an embezzlement, it seems more appropriate to constitute additional embezzlement for the post-activity separate from the first. Such reasoning would prevent unreasonable outcomes where the second action requiring more severe punishment than the first action could avoid punishment.