부동산실명법위반과 형법의 적용 = Violation of Act on the Registration of Real Estate Under Actual Titleholder’s Name And Application of Criminal law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Act on the Registration of Real Estate Under Actual Titleholder’s Name and the Criminal Act have different roles. Act on the Registration of Real Estate Under Actual Titleholder’s Name pursues to achieve the administrative purpose of restoring registered names to the trustee. The fact that the Real Name Real Estate Act stipulates a penalty surcharge and compulsory payment for title trust acts is for the direct purpose of restoring the title to the actual right holder, and that individual title trust cases without illegal purposes such as tax evasion should not be protected under criminal law. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act only refers to the property of others, and does not separate movable property, real estate, automobiles, construction machinery, ships, and aircraft. In the case of automobiles, construction machinery, ships, and aircraft, whether the crime of embezzlement has been established is judged based on the status of de facto control rather than registration. In the case of real estate due to the Real Name Real Estate Act, the main argument of the Supreme Court judgment on the application of the crime of embezzlement is that the legal relationship of a title trust is not worth protecting under the Criminal Act because it violates the Real Real Name Act. However, the role of criminal law lies in the protection of private property itself. Therefore, the concept of ownership in the Criminal Act must be independently grasped based on the status of real or legal control independent of real estate registration. If it is based on the concept of independent ownership of the Criminal Act, even in the case of a real estate title trust in violation of the Real Name Act, it will be possible to decide whether to apply the crime of embezzlement based on the independent judgment of the Criminal Act. If a fine is chosen as a criminal punishment for violating the Act on the Registration of Real Estate Under Actual Titleholder’s Name, there is a risk of fines and double punishment. It is necessary to delete the criminal punishment provisions of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate Under Actual Titleholder’s Name. It is desirable to solve the problem by applying the Criminal Act only in the case of title trusts that have been carried out for illegal purposes such as tax evasion through an investigation process. Other than that, I think that it is better to pursue only the achievement of administrative objectives with the compulsory performance and Administrative fines.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 송현진, "조해 신탁법" 진원사 2012
• 2 최수정, "일본 신신탁법" 진원사 2007
• 3 이계정, "신탁의 수익권의 성질에 관한 연구" 한국민사법학회 77 : 103-148, 2016
• 4 이연갑, "신탁법상 수익자 보호의 법리" 경인문화사 2014
• 5 김상용, "신탁법 해설"
• 6 新井誠, "신탁법" 전남대학교출판부 2011
• 7 김일수, "새로쓴 형법각론" 박영사 2018
• 8 이윤정, "부동산실명법상 과징금에 관한 판례 분석" 비교법학연구소 46 : 105-140, 2015
• 9 천진호, "부동산 명의수탁자 상속인의 횡령죄 성립 여부" 한국형사판례연구회 23 : 337-372, 2015
• 10 노베르트 회르스터, "법이란 무엇인가?" 세창출판사 2009
• 11 김상용, "민법과 법학의 중요문제; 의당 장경학박사 고희기념논문집" 동국대학교출판부 1987
• 12 김일수, "미수의 불법귀속에 관한 연구" 고려대학교 법학연구원 (40) : 2003
• 13 김상용, "미국부동산법론" 삼지원 1986
• 14 김상수, "명의신탁의 연혁에 관하여" 한국토지법학회 26 (26): 79-102, 2010
• 15 천진호, "명의신탁부동산 처분행위의 형사책임" 형사판례연구회 11 : 2003
• 16 우인성, "명의신탁 부동산의 처분과 재산범죄의 성립 여부" 한국형사판례연구회 24 : 351-402, 2016
• 17 김상용, "등기의 이론과 실무에 관한 제문제Ⅱ" 한국등기법학회 2002
• 18 강동범, "등기명의신탁에서 신탁부동산의 임의처분과 횡령죄의 성부 - 대법원 2016. 5. 19. 선고 2014도6992 전원합의체 판결 -" 법조협회 65 (65): 601-620, 2016
• 19 권오창, "계약명의신탁의 법률관계에 관한 고찰(하)-부동산실권리자명의등기에관한법률 제4조 제2항 단서의 해석을 중심으로-" 법조협회 48 (48): 1999