본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

부동산 명의수탁자 상속인의 횡령죄 성립 여부

The disposal of real estate of the nominal trustee’s heir and embezzlement

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

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.

Abstract

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.

참고문헌 (19)

  1. 김성돈, "형법각론, 제3판" (2013), 성균관대학교 출판부
  2. 박재혁, "부동산 명의신탁의 3대 과제" (2012), 진원사
  3. 오영근, "형법각론, 제2판" (2009), 박영사
  4. 이재상, "형법각론, 제9판" (2013), 박영사
  5. 지원림, "민법강의, 제12판" (2014), 홍문사
  6. 강동범, "계약명의신탁과 수탁자의 형사책임", 법학논집, 18(4), pp.135~164 (2014), 법학연구소
  7. 김인겸, "대법원판례해설 제56호", pp.328~338 (2005), 법원도서관
  8. 김재영, "재판실무연구", pp.3~59 (1998), 광주지방법원
  9. 김현용, "대법원판례해설 제70호(2007 상반기)", pp.258~270 (2007), 법원도서관
  10. 목영준, "부동산실권리자명의등기에관한법률상 명의신탁약정의 효력", 민사판례연구, 21, pp.93~131 (1999), 박영사
  11. 박동진, "부동산실명법 제4조에 의한 부동산명의신탁의 효력", 저스티스, 32(3), pp.61~87 (1999), 한국법학원
  12. 박상기, "형사재판의 제문제 제7권", pp.123~147 (2012), 형사실무연구회편(사법발전재단)
  13. 송오식, "계약명의신탁에서 명의수탁자의 처분행위와 불법행위 성립 여부 ― 대법원 2013.9.12. 선고 2010다95185 판결 ―", 법학논총, 34(1), pp.291~319 (2014), 법학연구소
  14. 원혜욱, "횡령죄에 있어서의 위탁관계", 형사판례연구, (14), pp.153~165 (2006), 박영사
  15. 이중민, "재판실무연구 제5권", pp.25~62 (2013), 수원지방법원
  16. 이창섭, "부동산 명의수탁자의 횡령죄 주체성", 형사판례연구, 19, pp.236~265 (2011), 한국형사판례연구회
  17. 이현복, "배우자 사망으로 인한 부부간 명의신탁관계는?", 국회보, (558), pp.138~139 (2013), 국회사무처
  18. 천진호, "형사재판의 제문제 제5권", pp.259~288 (2005), 형사실무연구회 편(박영사)
  19. 천진호, "명의신탁부동산 처분행위의 형사책임 —대법원 2002.8.27. 선고2002도2926 판결—", 형사판례연구, (11), pp.203~229 (2003)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (20건)