현행 부동산실명법이 이론적ㆍ실제적 측면에서 문제점을 노정하고 있는 것은, ⅰ) 명의신탁약정의 법적 성질에 관한 법이론적 검토가 결여되었기 때문이고, ⅱ) 내부관계의 문제와 외부관계의 문제를 동시에 규율하려고 했기 때문이라고 판단한다. 특히, 명의신탁자와 명의수탁자 사이에 체결된 명의신탁약정의 문제(내부관계)와 [3자간 등기명의신탁 및 계약명의신탁에서] 매도인과의 매매계약이 유효인가 하는 문제(외부관계)가 하나의 평면에서 논의될 수 없음에도 불구하고, 이를 명의신탁이라는 하나의 범주에 포함시켜 규율함으로써 여러 가지 문제가 생겨난다고 본다.
부동산실명법이 금지하고 있는 것은 명의신탁약정과 이에 기한 물권변동(즉, 명의신탁)이고, 매도인과의 매매계약은 금지의 대상이 아니다. 따라서 3자간 등기명의신탁에서 매매계약이 유효라고 보는 한, 매도인이 명의수탁자에게 이전등기한 것은 물권변동으로 유효하다고 보아야 한다. 계약명의신탁에서는 매도인이 ⅰ) 명의수탁자에게 법률효과를 귀속시킬 의사이고 명의신탁약정의 존재를 몰랐던 경우, ⅱ) 명의수탁자에게 법률효과를 귀속시킬 의사였으나 명의신탁약정의 존재를 알았던 경우, ⅲ) 명의신탁자에게 법률효과를 귀속시킬 의사였고 명의신탁약정의 존재를 알았던 경우로 나누어 살펴본다.
The current Act on the Registration of Real Estate Under Actual Titleholder’s Name(hereinafter ‘the Act’) presents problems in the theoretical and practical aspects because ⅰ) it lacks the legal and theoretical review of the legal nature of the title trust agreement, and ii) attempts to regulate both internal and external problems. In particular, the issue of the title trust agreement concluded between the title truster and the title trustee (internal relationship) and the issue of whether the sales contract with the seller is valid (in the Trilateral Registered Trust and the Contractual Title Trust) (external relationship), Despite being unable to be discussed in the plane, it seems that various problems arise by including and regulating this in one category of title trust. What the Act prohibits is a title trust agreement and a change in real estate due to it (ie, a title trust), and a sale contract with the seller is not subject to the ban. Thus, as long as the sale contract in the Trilateral Registered Trust is considered valid, the seller's transfer registration to the title trustee should be regarded as valid due to changes in real estate. In the Contractual Title Trust, if the seller is ⅰ) willing to assign the legal effect to the title trustee and does not know the existence of the title trust agreement, ⅱ) willing to assign the legal effect to the title trustee, but he know the existence of the title trust agreement, ⅲ) willing to attribute the legal effect to the title truster and know the existence of the title trust agreement, cases should be reviewed separately.
The current Act on the Registration of Real Estate Under Actual Titleholder’s Name(hereinafter ‘the Act’) presents problems in the theoretical and practical aspects because ⅰ) it lacks the legal and theoretical review of the legal nature of the title trust agreement, and ii) attempts to regulate both internal and external problems. In particular, the issue of the title trust agreement concluded between the title truster and the title trustee (internal relationship) and the issue of whether the sales contract with the seller is valid (in the Trilateral Registered Trust and the Contractual Title Trust) (external relationship), Despite being unable to be discussed in the plane, it seems that various problems arise by including and regulating this in one category of title trust. What the Act prohibits is a title trust agreement and a change in real estate due to it (ie, a title trust), and a sale contract with the seller is not subject to the ban. Thus, as long as the sale contract in the Trilateral Registered Trust is considered valid, the seller's transfer registration to the title trustee should be regarded as valid due to changes in real estate. In the Contractual Title Trust, if the seller is ⅰ) willing to assign the legal effect to the title trustee and does not know the existence of the title trust agreement, ⅱ) willing to assign the legal effect to the title trustee, but he know the existence of the title trust agreement, ⅲ) willing to attribute the legal effect to the title truster and know the existence of the title trust agreement, cases should be reviewed separately.
