삼자간 등기명의신탁에서 명의수탁자의 처분으로 인한 부당이득의 법률관계 - 대법원 2021. 9. 9. 선고 2018다284233 전원합의체 판결 - = A Study on the Case of Unjust Enrichment Where the Title Trustee disposed of the Title Trust Immovable in the Title Trust Involving a Third Party

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Korean Supreme Court issued an en banc decision 2018Da284233. The issue is who can claim a right to unjust enrichment in a case where the title trustee disposed of the title trust immovable in the title trust involving a third party. The majority opinion held that the title trustor can claim a right to unjust enrichment, whereas the dissenting opinion held that the seller can claim. Basically, this study deals with the majority opinion with a critical eye and the conclusion of this study could be summed up as follows:
First of all, in a case where the title trustee disposed of the title trust immovable in the title trust involving a third party, the impossibility of performance of the seller occurred due to the cause for which the title trustor(buyer) is responsible. Accordingly, the seller claims a right to the payment given by the title trustor(buyer). However, this does not mean that the seller, i.e. the owner of the title trust immovable did not sustain damage. Based on the assignment theory(Zuweisungsgehaltstheorie), the interference with the ownership itself can be deemed as the damage in Article 741 of the Civil Act and therefore, the seller, i.e. the owner of the title trust immovable can be said to sustain damage by the disposition of the title trustee and can claim a enrichment claim based on interference with a right of the claimant(Eingriffskondiktion) against the title trustee.
Secondly, the majority opinion erred in that it overlooked the basic principle of contract law. According to the basic principle of contract law, settlement arising from the dissolution of the contract should be done between the contracting parties so that each contract party should assume the risk of insolvency on the other party. Based on this principle, it is tenable that the title trustor(purchaser) can claim a right to unjust enrichment only against the other party of the sales contract, i.e. the seller. However, the majority opinion, which held that the title trustor can claim a right to unjust enrichment against the title trustee, does not follow the basic principle of the contract law without any justifiable grounds. It should be noted that the doctrine of unjust enrichment previously employed in cases where a debtor directs(“anweisen”in German) the third party to perform his or her obligation to the creditor cannot apply this case and therefore, the majority opinion cannot be justified based on this doctrine.
Thirdly, the majority opinion cannot be justified based on the actio de in rem verso. It is reasonable to assert that the actio de in rem verso cannot be acknowledged in Korean civil law. In addition, it is difficult to conclude that the title trustee obtained the profit by the appropriation of the payment of the title trustor toward the seller.