Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Trust registration opposable only on the composition of the trust estate
Supreme Court, May 15, 2025, 2023Da299338 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 용역비
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a trust contract governed by Article 4(1) of the Trust Act is recorded in the trust register and thus becomes part of the register record under Article 81(3) of the Real Property Registration Act, may the trustee also assert against a third party terms of that contract other than those concerning the composition of the trust estate, such as the priority order for executing funds and the prior consent it requires?
Holding
No, in principle. Article 4(1) of the Trust Act, wholly amended by Act No. 10924 of 25 July 2011 and effective from 26 July 2012, means that registering or recording a registrable property right makes that property, held apart from the trustee's other property, opposable to third parties as trust estate. So, absent special circumstances, a trust contract recorded in the trust register under Article 81(3) of the Real Property Registration Act may be asserted against third parties only on matters concerning the composition of the trust estate. The trustee could not rely on the fund-execution priority and the prior consent of the agent financial institution against the plaintiff, and the court below should have examined the nature and scope of the service fees and ordered payment if the obligation to bear them existed.
Points at issue, verbatim
신탁법 제4조 제1항의 규정 취지 및 위 조항이 적용되는 신탁계약에서 계약의 내용이 신탁원부에 기재되어 부동산등기법 제81조 제3항에 따라 등기기록의 일부로 보게 된 경우, 신탁재산의 구성에 관한 사항 외의 것으로도 제3자에게 대항할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, in light of the purpose of the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the Trust Act, where in a trust contract to which the foregoing provisions apply the contents of the contract are entered in the trust register and thereby regarded as part of the registration record pursuant to Article 81 (3) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, a third party may also be confronted with matters other than those concerning the composition of the trust property (in principle, negative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
따라서 신탁법 제4조 제1항이 적용되는 신탁계약에서는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 신탁계약의 내용이 신탁원부에 기재되어 부동산등기법 제81조 제3항에 따라 등기기록의 일부로 보게 되더라도 위와 같은 신탁재산의 구성에 관한 사항 외에는 이로써 제3자에게 대항할 수 없다
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, in a trust contract to which Article 4 (1) of the Trust Act applies, absent special circumstances, even though the contents of the trust contract are entered in the trust register and thereby regarded as part of the registration record pursuant to Article 81 (3) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, a third party cannot be confronted with anything other than the foregoing matters concerning the composition of the trust property on the basis thereof
Factors
- 신탁법 제4조 제1항의 규정 취지 및
- 위 조항이 적용되는 신탁계약에서 계약의 내용이 신탁원부에 기재되어 부동산등기법 제81조 제3항에 따라 등기기록의 일부로 보게 된 경우
- 신탁재산의 구성에 관한 사항 외의 것으로도 제3자에게 대항할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
- 갑 회사가 신탁계약에서 정한 자금집행의 우선순위와 그 선결요건의 미충족을 이유로 지급을 거절한 사안에서
Unofficial English translation
• The purpose of the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the Trust Act and
• Where in a trust contract to which the foregoing provisions apply the contents of the contract are entered in the trust register and thereby regarded as part of the registration record pursuant to Article 81 (3) of the Registration of Real Estate Act
• Whether a third party may also be confronted with matters other than those concerning the composition of the trust property (in principle, negative)
• In a case where company A refused payment on the ground of the order of priority for disbursement of funds stipulated in the trust contract and the non-satisfaction of the conditions precedent thereto,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2025. 2. 13. 선고 2022다233164 판결(공2025상, 544)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2022Da233164 decided February 13, 2025 (Gong 2025 Sang, 544)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2025. 2. 13. 선고 2022다233164 판결(공2025상, 544)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances, if any, would allow a trustee to assert a recorded term of the trust contract, such as the fund-execution priority, against a third party?
The remand judgment of the Seoul Central District Court, once it examines the nature and scope of the service fees and decides whether the defendant must bear them, will show how this rule works in practice. A later decision extending the opposability of a trust registration beyond the composition of the trust estate, or an amendment to Article 4(1) of the Trust Act or Article 81(3) of the Real Property Registration Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-26
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What special circumstances, if any, would allow a trustee to assert a recorded term of the trust contract, such as the fund-execution priority, against a third party?” vs Independent “Is there an independent basis for applying the trust agreement to the service provider, and what service fees must the trustee ultimately pay?”
The first reading asks what special circumstances would allow opposition, while the independent reading asks about another payment basis and the fee scope.
신탁법 제4조 제1항의 규정 취지 및 위 조항이 적용되는 신탁계약에서 계약의 내용이 신탁원부에 기재되어 부동산등기법 제81조 제3항에 따라 등기기록의 일부로 보게 된 경우, 신탁재산의 구성에 관한 사항 외의 것으로도 제3자에게 대항할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극)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 Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 12 October 2023 (2022Na65063), held that the trust contract had been included in the trust register and had become part of the registration, so the defendant could assert against the plaintiff that the precondition of prior consent from the agent financial institution had not been satisfied. It therefore dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the service fees: the ninth payment certificate of KRW 91.96 million claimed on 3 May 2019 and the balance of KRW 91.96 million claimed on 11 June 2019, KRW 183.92 million in all.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the reasoning of the court below could not stand as it was. Because the trust registration of the land makes the land opposable only as property belonging to the trust estate and distinguishable from the trustee's own property, the fund-execution priority and its precondition could not be asserted against the plaintiff. The Court added that the decisions the court below had cited, including Supreme Court Decision 2012Da13590 of 9 May 2012, all concerned Article 3(1) of the former Trust Act before the wholesale amendment and were not apt for this case governed by Article 4(1); it reversed the judgment and remanded for renewed hearing, on the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A term of the trust contract that concerns the composition of the trust estate, since such a term is opposable to third parties through the trust registration.
- Special circumstances that make the recorded term opposable, which the Court's rule leaves open by its wording 'absent special circumstances'.
- A trust governed by Article 3(1) of the former Trust Act before its wholesale amendment, since the earlier decisions the court below cited apply to that regime.
Record verification notes
First fix the date of the trust contract: this one was made on 3 August 2017, so the amended Article 4(1) applies. Then ask whether some other ground binds the plaintiff to the trust contract, which the Court expressly left open, before turning to the nature and scope of the service fees and the obligation to bear them. Set the file also against Article 26(2) and (3) of the special terms on the priority of fund execution and the succession contract of 7 August 2017.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 신탁법 제4조 제1항의 규정 취지 및 위 조항이 적용되는 신탁계약에서 계약의 내용이 신탁원부에 기재되어 부동산등기법 제81조 제3항에 따라 등기기록의 일부로 보게 된 경우, 신탁재산의 구성에 관한 사항 외의 것으로도 제3자에게 대항할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) [2] 갑 신탁회사가 을 주식회사와 체결한 신탁계약을 원인으로 하여 토지 및 그 지상 신축 건물에 관한 소유권이전등기를 마친 다음, 위 건물의 감리용역 업무를 수행하고 있던 공동수급체의 대표자인 병 주식회사와 감리용역승계계약을 체결하였는데, 병 회사가 건물 사용승인 후 용역비 기성금 중 미지급금과 용역비 잔금의 지급을 구하자, 갑 회사가 신탁계약에서 정한 자금집행의 우선순위와 그 선결요건의 미충족을 이유로 지급을 거절한 사안에서, 신탁계약에서 자금집행의 우선순위와 그 선결요건을 정하여 신탁원부에 기재되었더라도 이로써 제3자인 병 회사에 대항할 수 없다고 보아야 하는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, in light of the purpose of the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the Trust Act, where in a trust contract to which the foregoing provisions apply the contents of the contract are entered in the trust register and thereby regarded as part of the registration record pursuant to Article 81 (3) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, a third party may also be confronted with matters other than those concerning the composition of the trust property (in principle, negative) [2] A case in which, after trust company A completed the registration of transfer of ownership of land and a newly constructed building thereon on the ground of a trust contract concluded with Company B, it concluded a supervision services succession agreement with Company C, the representative of the joint venture that had been performing the construction supervision services for the building; where, upon Company C's demand for payment of the unpaid portion of the progress payments for the services and of the balance of the service fees after the building's approval for occupancy, company A refused payment on the ground of the order of priority for disbursement of funds stipulated in the trust contract and the non-satisfaction of the conditions precedent thereto; and where it was held that, notwithstanding that the order of priority for disbursement of funds and the conditions precedent therefor were stipulated in the trust contract and entered in the trust register, they cannot thereby be asserted against Company C, a third party, the reasoning of the court below, which decided otherwise, misapprehended legal principles
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 신탁법 제4조 제1항, 부동산등기법 제81조 제3항 [2] 신탁법 제4조 제1항, 부동산등기법 제81조 제3항
Read 2026-10-26 · Cross-read 2026-10-26. 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