Case Type: Civil

Case Details:

1. Case Overview

The client company acquired the golf course business rights and site land in bulk from the previous development company in 1999. However, because certain parts of the site and access roads were categorized as agricultural land (fields/paddies), the profit-making corporation could not obtain the necessary Agricultural Land Acquisition Qualification Certificate.

To resolve this, the company utilized a title trust method, acquiring and holding the land under the individual name of an executive from an affiliated company. Years later, while battling terminal cancer and approximately five months prior to his death, this title trustee gifted all of the said land to his spouse and completed the registration of ownership transfer. The donee (the spouse) subsequently filed the main lawsuit against the client company, demanding the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent for occupying the land.

2. Key Legal Strategies: "Establishing a Three-Party Title Trust and Proving the Donee's Active Participation"

Attorney Tae-Ho Song systematically established the case through concrete evidence—such as the custody of title deeds, the registration of provisional registrations, corporate asset ledgers, the sellers' perception, and the deceased's health condition—proving three critical points:

1. A three-party registration title trust was established between the client company and the deceased.

2. The deceased's gift constituted a breach of trust against the title truster.

3. The donee (the spouse) actively participated in that breach of trust.

• Proving the Three-Party Registration Title Trust Relationship: Attorney Song concretely demonstrated that this was a three-party registration title trust rather than a contract title trust. Key evidence included the fact that the client company directly held custody of the land's title deeds, a provisional registration based on a sale/purchase promise had been established prior to the deceased acquiring ownership, the land was managed as a company asset on internal corporate ledgers, and the sellers understood the actual contracting party to be the client company rather than the individual executive.

• Demonstrating the Donee's Active Participation: It was shown that the donee had previously worked at the same affiliate company for over seven years, placing her in a position to be well aware of the land's usage and the title trust arrangement. Furthermore, she registered her marriage to the deceased just before the gift, received all the land without providing any consideration, and the deceased passed away shortly thereafter. Compiling these circumstances, the defense successfully established that the donee actively participated in the deceased's unauthorized disposal of the title-trust property.

• Structuring the Claim for True Name Registration Recovery via Subrogation: In a three-party registration title trust, the sales contract between the seller and the title truster remains valid. Therefore, to preserve the client company's right to claim ownership transfer registration against the sellers, Attorney Song structured a counterclaim. This counterclaim subrogated the sellers to demand that the donee execute the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the recovery of true name registration.

3. Case Outcome: Dismissal of Main Claim & Full Approval of Counterclaim

By thoroughly proving the establishment of the title trust and the donee's active participation, Attorney Song successfully led the court to rule that the gift and subsequent ownership transfer registration in the spouse's name were void as an act contrary to public policy and social order (under Article 103 of the Civil Act).

Final Ruling:

• The opposing party's main claim for the return of unjust enrichment was dismissed in its entirety.

• The client company's primary counterclaim was fully sustained, resulting in a judgment ordering the execution of ownership transfer registration procedures for the land based on the recovery of true name registration.