명의신탁 부동산에 대하여 수탁자가 신탁자의 승낙을 받지 아니하고 수탁재산을 임의로 처분한 경우 형법적으로 이를 어떻게 취급할 것인가에 대하여는 여러 가지 견해들이 있다. 특히 대법원 판례는 이와 관련하여 명의신탁의 유형에 따라 일부 횡령죄를 인정하고 있는 경우도 있으나 그 피해자가 누구인지 및 명의신탁의 유형별 횡령죄의 성립 등과 관련하여 법리구성이 반드시 명확한 것은 아니라고 생각된다. 대법원 판례가 부동산에 대한 양도담보나 매도담보와 관련하여 변제기 이전에 자신의 명의로 된 담보 목적 부동산을 임의로 처분한 채권자나, 이중매매에 있어서의 매도인 등에 대한 등기협력 의무를 타인의 사무로 보아 배임죄를 인정하고 있음에도, 유사한 구조인 수탁자의 수탁부동산 처분행위는 배임죄가 아닌 횡령죄로 인정하고 있기 때문이다. 이는 결국 수탁부동산을 처분한 수탁자에 대하여 배임죄의 전제가 되는 타인의 사무를 처리하는 자로서의 지위를 인정할 수 있을 것인가, 아니면 타인의 재물을 보관하는 자의 지위를 인정할 수 있을 것인가의 문제와 관련이 있다고 할 수 있다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 명의신탁에 있어서 수탁 부동산을 임의로 처분한 수탁자에 대하여 이중매매의 매도인, 양도담보나 매도담보의 채권자 등과 통일적인 법적용이 될 수 있도록 타인의 사무를 처리하는 자의 지위를 인정한 후 배임죄의 성립을 인정할 수 있을 것인가에 대하여 살펴보고, 그 결론을 가지고 각각의 명의신탁 유형에 구체적으로 이러한 결론을 적용하여 명의신탁 부동산을 임의 처분한 수탁자에 대한 형사책임에 대한 해석론을 제시해 보고자 한다.

It often happens that after someone purchases a specific part in one parcel of land, a shared equity registration is made according to the area ratio of the specific part in the whole land, and this legal relation is called co-ownership of divided ownership. This is substantially sole ownership of the relevant party on the inside and takes the form of “co-ownership registration” on the outside, but Korean precedents solve this problem by the so-called co-title trust principle by citing the legal principle of title trust. Therefore, in the relation of co-ownership of divided ownership, each co-owner can dispose of his or her specific division part independently and freely transfer the corresponding shared equity registration. However, if a land is divided into independent parcels by specific division parts owned separately, our precedents consider that the shared equity registration of the co-owner name transferred to each remaining parcel other than the parcel corresponding to each specific division part can no longer be regarded as a registration to represent a parcel corresponding to a particular division part of the co-owner, and only the co-title trust relation between the co-owners will survive. Thus, each co-owner is in the position of a person keeping the shared equity in relation to the other co-owners with respect to the shared equity of his or her name transferred over each remaining parcel, and if he or she disposes of it, an embezzlement is established. But it is doubtful whether a shared equity can be regarded as a property of embezzlement in the “person who keeps other’s property” among constitutional elements of embezzlement. Shared equity, which is a quantitative part held by a co-owner, is an idea that can govern things, and it is problematic to regard it as a property. Therefore, even though Korean precedents acknowledge embezzlement in this case, it is reasonable to regard it as a breach of trust rather than embezzlement.

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).