부동산명의신탁의 유형에 따른처분행위와 사해행위 - 대법원 2013. 9. 12. 선고 2011다89903판결을 중심으로 -

Abstract

Lawyer may make a decision following the individual reasoning if there are one juristic act between the title registration of real property by a third party’s name and fraudulent act. It is quite trouble some if both acts happens at the same time reflecting very complicated legal reasoning of the title registration of real property by a third party’s name and cancellation of fraudulent act. Many lawyers speak’s their mind is nothing for it to such a headache. Therefore it is not simple question in the legal field. Moreover, a situation that concealment and disposal of the debtor’s property is becoming increasingly sophisticated to escape an enforcement, and proactive quarrels among the creditors of the legal action also quickly made against him, the conflicts between them are really accelerated. Because the issue is which one is more consistent with the legal framework concerning whether they choose to view on the conflicts of interest as a typical case of the above two conflicting jurisprudence which way is to take any criticism in its resolution must endure. Moreover, the detailed national literature does not exist, I argue, as an author, if one may encounters the fraudulent act after registration of real property by a third party’s name, how to solve a mix of the registration of real property by a third party’s name. I insist that unlike the judicial ruling, the registration of real property by a third party’s name can be solved by the act of substantial named registration and the combination both act of substantial named registration and reasoning of fraudulent act. In addition, if the real estate trust agreement conduct itself had been occurred while the registration of real property by a third party’s name becoming the fraudulent act and both legal reasoning happened at the same time, I added another way to solve the issue of fraudulent act itself. Therefore, the registration of real property by a third party’s name is banned by the act of substantial named registration is not completely solved and currently government take action against this issue in the policy and system basis. It is a problem deformed legal action. So we should not choose the way to resolve itself by reasoning of the real estate title registration by a third party’s name. I strongly believe that the best choice of legal action is the way to resolve itself by applying the real estate real name registration act may be the most appropriate interpretation of the current laws and regulations.