중간생략형 명의신탁에서의 매도인의 법적 지위

Seller’s Legal Status in a Middle-Title-Omitted Type Title Trust

중간생략형 명의신탁은 매도인과 신탁자(매수인) 사이에 매매계약이 체결되는데 그 계약에 따른 등기는 매매계약의 상대방인 신탁자가 아니라 수탁자 명의로 경료된다. 그러나 수탁자명의로의물권변동은부동산실명법제4조제2항에따라무효가되므로매도인은 여전히소유권을보유한불확정한상태로명의신탁관계에남아있게된다. 이글에서는물권변동이무효가됨으로써발생하는매도인의법적지위와관련한쟁점을신탁자와의관계에서는 매매계약의 효력 여부, 수탁자와의 관계에서는 수탁자의 처분행위를 전제로 한 손해배상청구권의발생여부, 제3자와의관계에서는매도인의책임재산이라고볼수있는지, 달리표현하면 채권자취소권의 주체 문제로 논의하였다. 이러한 논의에 대하여, 이 글에서는 다음과 같은 결론에 이르렀다. 먼저 매도인과 신탁자 사이의 매매계약은 무효이므로 매도인의 소유권이전등기의무는 발생할 여지가 없고, 당사자들 사이에는 매매계약 무효에 따른원상회복만이남아 있을뿐이다. 둘째, 부동산실명법제4조 제2항에따라 매도인이갖게되는 소유권의 실체가 무엇인지 규명되어야 한다. 그것은 일반적인 소유권과 달리 명목상의소유권일 뿐이다. 따라서 매도인이 갖는 소유권의 실체는 매매대금을 적법히 보유할 수 있는 권리 또는 매매대금 상당의 손해배상채권이라고 이해하여야 하고, 이러한 전제에서 수탁자를 상대로 한 손해배상청구권의 발생 여부와 범위가 논의되어야 한다. 셋째 판례는 중간생략형 명의신탁의 경우, 수탁자의 일반채권자들은 수탁자의 처분행위가 있더라도 수탁자의 책임재산이 아니므로 사해행위취소권을 행사할 수 없다고 판시하고 있을 뿐이고, 그렇다면매도인과신탁자의일반채권자중누가사해행위취소권을갖는지에대하여이를명확히 하지 않고 있다. 이 글에서는 비록 종래의 다수설과 판례와 같이 매도인과 신탁자 사이의매매계약이유효하다고전제하더라도부동산실명법제4조제3항을유추적용하여수탁자의 일반채권자만이 사해행위취소권을 행사할 수 있다고 보았다.

In a middle-title-omitted type title trust, a sales contract is concluded between a seller and a title truster(buyer), and registration according to the contract is payments are made in the name of the trustee rather than the title truster who is the counter party to the sales contract. However, since the transfer of a real right in the name of the title trustee is invalid according to Article 4(2) of the Real Estate Owner Registration Act, the seller still retains the title in an indeterminate state. It remains in a title trust relationship. In this paper, the issues related to the legal status of the seller arising from the invalidation of the change in property rights are discussed in relation to the validity of the sales contract in the relationship with the title truster and the act of disposition of the trustee in the relationship with the trustee. Disposition, whether the right to claim damages occurs, whether it can be regarded as the seller s liability in relation to a third party, or in other words, the subject matter of the obligee s right of revocation was discussed. With respect to these discussions, this article has reached the following conclusions. First, since the sale contract between the seller and the trustee is null and void, there is no room for the seller s obligation to register the transfer of ownership, and only the restoration of the original state due to the invalidity of the sale contract remains between the parties. Second, it should be clarified what the real ownership rights the seller has in accordance with Article 4 (2) of Real Estate Owner Registration Act. Unlike general ownership, it is only nominal ownership. Therefore, it should be understood that the substance of the ownership owned by the seller is the right to legally hold the purchase price or a claim for damages equivalent to the purchase price, and the occurrence and scope of the claim for damages against the trustee should be discussed under this premise. Third, Judicial precedent states that in the case of a middle-title-omitted type title trust, general creditors of the trustee cannot exercise the right to cancel the deceptive act because they are not the trustee s liability even if the trustee s disposition of real estate occurs. If it is, there is no precedent that clearly clarifies which of the general creditors of the seller and the title truster has the right to cancel the deceptive act. In this article, although it is assumed that the sales contract between the seller and the title truster is valid as in the conventional majority theory and precedent, Article 4(3) of Real Estate Owner Registration Act is applied by analogical application to the general trustee, only general creditors of the trustee were considered to have the right to cancel the deceptive act.