Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Vendor or written donor as a person handling another's affairs in breach of trust
Supreme Court, Dec. 13, 2018, 2016Do19308 (judgment)
Case name: 배임
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a vendor whose real estate sale contract has reached the stage of substantial performance, or a donor who has expressed the intention to give in writing, become a person handling another's affairs for breach of trust, and does disposing of the property to a third party before transferring title constitute the offence?
Holding
Yes. Once a real estate sale contract has reached the stage of substantial performance, such as payment of earnest money, the vendor cannot escape the obligation to transfer title unless the contract is cancelled or released, and from that point stands in a relationship of trust with the buyer and is a person handling another's affairs. Disposing of the property to a third party and registering title before transferring it to the buyer obstructs the buyer's acquisition or preservation of the property and constitutes breach of trust. The same applies to a donor who has expressed the intention to give in writing: transferring the property to a third party instead of the donee betrays the relationship of trust and constitutes breach of trust, and on that basis the Supreme Court reversed the acquittal below.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
서면으로 부동산 증여의 의사를 표시한 증여자는 계약이 취소되거나 해제되지 않는 한 수증자에게 목적부동산의 소유권을 이전할 의무에서 벗어날 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
A donor who has expressed in writing an intention to make a gift of real property cannot be released from the duty to transfer to the donee ownership of the real property that is the subject of the gift, unless the contract is rescinded or cancelled.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
서면으로 부동산 증여의 의사를 표시한 증여자는 계약이 취소되거나 해제되지 않는 한 수증자에게 목적부동산의 소유권을 이전할 의무에서 벗어날 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
A donor who has expressed in writing an intention to make a gift of real property cannot be released from the duty to transfer to the donee ownership of the real property that is the subject of the gift, unless the contract is rescinded or cancelled.
Factors
- 계약이 취소되거나 해제되지 않는 한 매도인은 매수인에게 부동산의 소유권을 이전할 의무에서 벗어날 수 없다
- 매수인의 재산보전에 협력하여 재산적 이익을 보호·관리할 신임관계에 있게 되고
- 매수인의 부동산 취득이나 보전에 지장을 초래하는 행위로서 배임죄가 성립한다
- 서면으로 부동산 증여의 의사를 표시한 증여자는
- 수증자와의 신임관계를 저버리는 행위로서 배임죄가 성립한다
Unofficial English translation
• Unless the contract is rescinded or cancelled, the seller cannot be released from the duty to transfer ownership of the real property to the purchaser
• and comes to stand in a fiduciary relationship in which he is to cooperate in preserving the purchaser's property and protect and manage the purchaser's pecuniary benefit
• and an act that impedes the purchaser's acquisition or preservation of the real property constitutes the offense of breach of trust
• A donor who has expressed in writing an intention to make a gift of real property
• and an act that betrays the fiduciary relationship with the donee constitutes the offense of breach of trust
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2018. 5. 17. 선고 2017도4027 전원합의체 판결(공2018하, 1203)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Do4027 decided May 17, 2018 (Gong 2018 Ha, 1203)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2018. 5. 17. 선고 2017도4027 전원합의체 판결(공2018하, 1203)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How is the written expression of the intention to give proved, and at what date must it have been made for the donor's obligation to bind the donor at the time of the third party disposition?
A judgment of the Suwon District Court on remand that finds or rejects the written expression of the intention to give would show how the rule is applied to these facts. A later decision qualifying the en banc decision 2017Do4027, or an amendment to Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Suwon District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 4 November 2016 (2016No1850), acquitted the defendant on the charge. It reasoned that even if the gift contract obliged the defendant to carry out the transfer registration procedure in favour of the victim, that obligation was no more than the defendant's own affair, and it rejected the prosecution's arguments that the facts had been misfound and the law misapplied.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the seller's obligation to transfer title, once the contract has reached the stage of substantial performance and is not cancelled or released, is not the seller's own affair but a duty owed within a relationship of trust with the buyer, and that the same reasoning applies to a written gift contract. It held that the court below should have examined whether the defendant had expressed the intention to give in writing and, if that was established, found the charge proved, and that proceeding from the erroneous premise it had adopted it had misapplied the law on a person handling another's affairs and failed to hold the necessary hearing. The judgment was therefore reversed and the case remanded to the Suwon District Court on the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A sale or gift contract that has been cancelled or released before the third party disposition, since the vendor or donor is then free of the obligation to transfer title.
- A sale contract that has not yet reached the stage of substantial performance, such as payment of earnest money, so that no relationship of trust has yet arisen.
- A donor who never expressed the intention to give in writing, since the Court's rule on gifts rests on that written expression.
Record verification notes
Establish first whether the contract in issue was a sale or a gift, and whether it was still in force at the time of the third party disposition. Then check whether the record shows the written expression of intention to give, which the Supreme Court held had to be examined and which the court below had left unexamined. Measure the act complained of against the requirement that it obstruct the acquisition or preservation of the other party's property or betray the relationship of trust, and read the en banc decision 2017Do4027 for the sale side of the rule.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 부동산 매매계약에서 중도금이 지급되는 등 계약이 본격적으로 이행되는 단계에 이른 경우, 그때부터 매도인은 배임죄에서 말하는 ‘타인의 사무를 처리하는 자’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) 및 그러한 지위에 있는 매도인이 매수인에게 계약 내용에 따라 부동산의 소유권을 이전해 주기 전에 부동산을 제3자에게 처분하여 등기를 하는 행위가 배임죄를 구성하는지 여부(적극) / 서면으로 부동산 증여의 의사를 표시한 증여자가 ‘타인의 사무를 처리하는 자’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) 및 그가 수증자에게 증여계약에 따라 부동산의 소유권을 이전하지 않고 부동산을 제3자에게 처분하여 등기를 하는 행위가 배임죄를 구성하는지 여부(적극) [2] 피고인이 갑과의 증여계약에 따라 목장용지 중 1/2 지분을 갑에게 증여하고 증여의 의사를 서면으로 표시하였는데 그 후 금융기관에서 일정 금액의 돈을 대출받으면서 목장용지에 금융기관 앞으로 근저당권설정등기를 마침으로써 피담보채무액 중 1/2 지분에 해당하는 금액의 재산상 이익을 취득하고, 갑에게 같은 금액의 재산상 손해를 입혔다고 하여 배임으로 기소된 사안에서, 서면으로 증여의 의사를 표시한 증여자의 소유권이전등기의무가 증여자 자기의 사무일 뿐이라는 전제에서 공소사실을 무죄로 판단한 원심판결에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, in a contract for the sale of real property, where a stage has been reached at which the contract is performed in earnest, such as payment of the intermediate payment, the seller is from that time onward a "person who handles another's business" as referred to in the offense of breach of trust (affirmative) / whether an act of the seller, who holds such a position, of disposing of the real property to a third person and registering the transfer before transferring ownership of the real property to the purchaser in accordance with the terms of the contract, constitutes the offense of breach of trust (affirmative) / whether a donor who has expressed in writing an intention to make a gift of real property is a "person who handles another's business" (affirmative) / whether his act of disposing of the real property to a third person and registering the transfer without transferring ownership of the real property to the donee in accordance with the gift contract constitutes the offense of breach of trust (affirmative) [2] In a case where the defendant, having made a gift to A of a 1/2 share of the ranch site pursuant to a gift contract with A and having expressed the intention to make the gift in writing, subsequently obtained a loan of a certain sum of money from a financial institution and, at the same time, completed registration of the establishment of a maximum amount mortgage on the ranch site in favor of the financial institution, thereby acquiring a pecuniary benefit in the amount corresponding to a 1/2 share of the secured debt and causing A pecuniary loss in the same amount, and was prosecuted for breach of trust, a case holding that the judgment of the court below, which found the facts charged not guilty on the premise that the donor who had expressed the intention to make the gift in writing was under a duty to register the transfer of ownership that was merely the donor's own business, was erroneous on the ground of misapprehension of legal principles and the like
Summary of the holding
[1] 부동산 매매계약에서 중도금이 지급되는 등 계약이 본격적으로 이행되는 단계에 이른 때에는 계약이 취소되거나 해제되지 않는 한 매도인은 매수인에게 부동산의 소유권을 이전할 의무에서 벗어날 수 없다. 이러한 단계에 이른 때에 매도인은 매수인에게 매수인의 재산보전에 협력하여 재산적 이익을 보호·관리할 신임관계에 있게 되고, 그때부터 배임죄에서 말하는 ‘타인의 사무를 처리하는 자’에 해당한다고 보아야 한다. 그러한 지위에 있는 매도인이 매수인에게 계약 내용에 따라 부동산의 소유권을 이전해 주기 전에 부동산을 제3자에게 처분하여 등기를 하는 행위는 매수인의 부동산 취득이나 보전에 지장을 초래하는 행위로서 배임죄가 성립한다. 이러한 법리는 서면에 의한 부동산 증여계약에도 마찬가지로 적용된다. 서면으로 부동산 증여의 의사를 표시한 증여자는 계약이 취소되거나 해제되지 않는 한 수증자에게 목적부동산의 소유권을 이전할 의무에서 벗어날 수 없다. 그러한 증여자는 ‘타인의 사무를 처리하는 자’에 해당하고, 그가 수증자에게 증여계약에 따라 부동산의 소유권을 이전하지 않고 부동산을 제3자에게 처분하여 등기를 하는 행위는 수증자와의 신임관계를 저버리는 행위로서 배임죄가 성립한다. [2] 피고인이 갑과의 증여계약에 따라 목장용지 중 1/2 지분을 갑에게 증여하고 증여의 의사를 서면으로 표시하였는데 그 후 농업협동조합에서 4,000만 원을 대출받으면서 목장용지에 농업협동조합 앞으로 채권최고액 5,200만 원의 근저당권설정등기를 마침으로써 피담보채무액 중 1/2 지분에 해당하는 2,000만 원의 재산상 이익을 취득하고, 갑에게 같은 금액의 재산상 손해를 입혔다고 하여 배임으로 기소된 사안에서, 피고인이 서면으로 증여의 의사를 표시하였는지에 관하여 심리하지 아니한 채, 서면으로 증여의 의사를 표시한 증여자의 소유권이전등기의무는 증여자 자기의 사무일 뿐이라는 전제에서 공소사실을 무죄로 판단한 원심판결에 배임죄에서 ‘타인의 사무를 처리하는 자’ 등에 관한 법리를 오해하고 필요한 심리를 다하지 않은 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제355조 제2항, 민법 제555조, 제565조 [2] 형법 제355조 제2항, 민법 제555조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger