Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Transfer of mandate-acquired rights and when limitation starts
Supreme Court, Sept. 7, 2022, 2022Da217117 (judgment)
Case name: 소유권이전등기
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a local government, under a compensation work agency agreement, acquires land in its own name for a shipyard industrial complex project and the agreement requires it to register ownership in the company's name, must it transfer the ownership when the agreement ends, and when does the company's claim for transfer registration become subject to the limitation period?
Holding
Unless there is a special agreement between the parties, or special circumstances such as a result contrary to the intent of the mandate, the time of transfer is when the mandate contract ends. Article 684(2) of the Civil Code applies to a right acquired in the agent's own name for the principal in the course of the mandated work, so the limitation period on the principal's claim for transfer runs from the end of the mandate contract. Because the agreement did not fix the time of transfer, the lower court had to examine whether special circumstances required transfer before the agreement ended and, if not, when the agreement ended, and only then decide whether the limitation period had run.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이때 그 이전 시기는 당사자 간에 특약이 있거나 위임의 본뜻에 반하는 경우 등과 같은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 위임계약이 종료된 때이다. 따라서 위임사무로 수임인 명의로 취득한 권리에 관한 위임인의 이전청구권의 소멸시효는 위임계약이 종료된 때부터 진행하게 된다.
Unofficial English translation
At this time, the time of such transfer is the time when the mandate contract is terminated, absent special circumstances such as the existence of a special stipulation between the parties or a case contrary to the true intent of the mandate. Accordingly, the extinctive prescription of the principal's claim for transfer of a right acquired in the agent's own name through the mandate business commences to run from the time when the mandate contract is terminated.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 원고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and this part of the case is remanded to the Busan High Court. The defendant's final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이때 그 이전 시기는 당사자 간에 특약이 있거나 위임의 본뜻에 반하는 경우 등과 같은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 위임계약이 종료된 때이다.
Unofficial English translation
At this time, the time of such transfer is the time when the mandate contract is terminated, absent special circumstances such as the existence of a special stipulation between the parties or a case contrary to the true intent of the mandate.
Factors
- 당사자 간에 특약이 있거나 위임의 본뜻에 반하는 경우 등과 같은 특별한 사정이 없는 한
- 위 협약의 목적이나 업무의 내용 등에 비추어 보면, 위 협약의 법적 성질은 민법상의 위임계약 또는 그와 유사한 비전형계약이라고 봄이 타당하고
- 위 협약에서 특별히 정한 바가 없어 민법상 위임에 관한 규정 중 제684조 제2항이 적용되어야 하므로
- 각 토지에 관한 갑 회사의 을 지방자치단체에 대한 소유권이전등기청구권의 소멸시효는 위 협약의 종료 시점부터 진행하는데도
Unofficial English translation
• absent special circumstances such as the existence of a special stipulation between the parties or a case contrary to the true intent of the mandate,
• in light of the purpose of said agreement and the content of the work, etc., it is proper to regard the legal nature of said agreement as a mandate contract under the Civil Act or a similar atypical contract, and
• as nothing in particular is stipulated in said agreement, Article 684 paragraph (2) of the Civil Act among the provisions on mandate under the Civil Act must apply, so
• the extinctive prescription of Company A's claim against local government B for registration of the transfer of ownership of each of the lands runs from the time of the termination of said agreement,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2007. 2. 8. 선고 2004다64432 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2004Da64432 decided February 8, 2007
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2007. 2. 8. 선고 2004다64432 판결(공2007상, 424), 대법원 2016. 6. 28. 선고 2016다11295 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the agreement's period runs until deposit and ownership transfer work are completed, what facts fix the date on which the agreement ended and limitation began to run?
The remand judgment of the Busan High Court on when this agreement ended will show how the starting point is fixed in practice. A later decision on Article 684(2) of the Civil Code, or a change to that provision, would also 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 Busan High Court, Changwon, in its judgment of 13 January 2022 (2021Na12240), held that Article 12 of the compensation work agency agreement required the defendant to register ownership in the company's name for the land it acquired in the course of the work, so that the company's claim for transfer registration arose when the defendant acquired each parcel, and that the limitation period on that claim therefore ran from each acquisition date. It also held that the parcels in issue could not be treated as administrative property.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the holding that the parcels were not administrative property, since the court below had not failed to examine what was needed or misapplied the requirements for administrative property. On the limitation point, it corrected the lower court: the agreement's purpose, the content of the work, the ban on assigning or disposing of contractual rights, the agent's duties to report, right to advance costs, right to remuneration and obligation to transfer the land acquired for the principal show that the agreement is a mandate contract under the Civil Code or a similar atypical contract. As Article 684(2) of the Civil Code applies, the ownership must, absent special circumstances, be transferred at the end of the agreement and limitation runs from that point. The Court reversed the part of the judgment in which the company lost, remanded that part to the Busan High Court, and dismissed the defendant's appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the parties agreed on a specific time for transferring a right acquired in the agent's own name, or in which special circumstances make transfer contrary to the intent of the mandate, since the rule applies only where there are no such circumstances.
- A dispute in which the agreement itself sets the point in time for registration, since the rule fills the gap left by silence on the time of transfer.
- A claim that the parcels are administrative property, which the Supreme Court found the court below had properly rejected and did not disturb.
Record verification notes
Read the compensation work agency agreement as a whole, especially the clause on registration in the company's name and the clause on the agreement's period, which here runs until deposit and ownership transfer work is completed. Then fix the actual date the agreement ended, since limitation runs from that date and not from the date each parcel was acquired. Set any special circumstance said to require earlier transfer against the intent of the mandate before relying on the rule.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 수임인이 위임인을 위하여 자기 명의로 취득한 권리를 위임인에게 이전하여야 하는 시기 및 위 권리에 관한 위임인의 이전청구권의 소멸시효 기산점(=위임계약이 종료된 때) [2] 갑 주식회사와 을 지방자치단체가 조선산업단지 개발사업 시행에 따라 갑 회사가 을 지방자치단체에 사업부지 내 편입된 토지 매수 및 손실보상 등에 관한 업무를 위탁하기로 하는 내용의 보상업무대행협약을 체결하고, 위 협약에 을 지방자치단체가 보상업무 처리로 취득하는 토지 등에 관하여 소유권을 갑 회사 명의로 등기하기로 정하였는데, 을 지방자치단체가 사업부지 내 토지에 관하여 을 지방자치단체 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마치자, 갑 회사가 을 지방자치단체를 상대로 위 토지에 대한 소유권이전등기절차의 이행을 구한 사안에서, 을 지방자치단체가 위 협약에 의한 업무 처리 과정에서 을 지방자치단체 명의로 취득한 각 토지에 관한 소유권은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 위 협약의 종료 시점을 기준으로 갑 회사에 이전하여야 하고, 각 토지에 관한 갑 회사의 을 지방자치단체에 대한 소유권이전등기청구권의 소멸시효는 위 협약의 종료 시점부터 진행한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The point in time at which an agent must transfer to the principal a right acquired in the agent's own name for the principal, and the point at which the extinctive prescription of the principal's claim for transfer of such right commences to run (= the time when the mandate contract is terminated) [2] A case in which Company A and local government B, a local government, entered into a compensation business agency agreement to the effect that, in connection with the implementation of a shipbuilding industrial complex development project, Company A would entrust to local government B the work of purchasing lands incorporated into the project site and making compensation for losses, etc., and pursuant to said agreement it was stipulated that ownership of lands and the like acquired by local government B in the course of handling the compensation business would be registered in the name of Company A; whereupon, after local government B completed registration of the transfer of ownership of lands within the project site in its own name, Company A filed an action against local government B seeking performance of the procedures for registration of the transfer of ownership of said lands, and it was held that, absent special circumstances, the ownership of each of the lands acquired in the name of local government B in the course of handling the work under said agreement must be transferred to Company A as of the time of the termination of said agreement, and that the extinctive prescription of Company A's claim against local government B for registration of the transfer of ownership of each of the lands runs from the time of the termination of said agreement
Summary of the holding
[1] 민법 제684조 제2항은 "수임인이 위임인을 위하여 자기의 명의로 취득한 권리는 위임인에게 이전하여야 한다."라고 규정하고 있는데, 이때 그 이전 시기는 당사자 간에 특약이 있거나 위임의 본뜻에 반하는 경우 등과 같은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 위임계약이 종료된 때이다. 따라서 위임사무로 수임인 명의로 취득한 권리에 관한 위임인의 이전청구권의 소멸시효는 위임계약이 종료된 때부터 진행하게 된다. [2] 갑 주식회사와 을 지방자치단체가 조선산업단지 개발사업 시행에 따라 갑 회사가 을 지방자치단체에 사업부지 내 편입된 토지 매수 및 손실보상 등에 관한 업무를 위탁하기로 하는 내용의 보상업무대행협약을 체결하고, 위 협약에 을 지방자치단체가 보상업무 처리로 취득하는 토지 등에 관하여 소유권을 갑 회사 명의로 등기하기로 정하였는데, 을 지방자치단체가 사업부지 내 토지에 관하여 을 지방자치단체 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마치자, 갑 회사가 을 지방자치단체를 상대로 위 토지에 대한 소유권이전등기절차의 이행을 구한 사안에서, 위 협약의 목적이나 업무의 내용 등에 비추어 보면, 위 협약의 법적 성질은 민법상의 위임계약 또는 그와 유사한 비전형계약이라고 봄이 타당하고, 위 협약에 따라 업무를 처리하는 과정에서 각 토지에 관한 소유권을 취득한 을 지방자치단체는 위 토지에 관하여 갑 회사 명의로 소유권을 이전할 의무를 부담하게 되는데, 그 권리의 이전 시기에 관하여 위 협약에서 특별히 정한 바가 없어 민법상 위임에 관한 규정 중 제684조 제2항이 적용되어야 하므로, 을 지방자치단체가 위 협약에 의한 업무 처리 과정에서 을 지방자치단체 명의로 취득한 각 토지에 관한 소유권은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 위 협약의 종료 시점을 기준으로 갑 회사에 이전하여야 하고, 각 토지에 관한 갑 회사의 을 지방자치단체에 대한 소유권이전등기청구권의 소멸시효는 위 협약의 종료 시점부터 진행하는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 심리미진 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 원고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and this part of the case is remanded to the Busan High Court. The defendant's final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제684조 [2] 민법 제684조
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