Open Decision Ledger · Customary law & property rights
Presumption of registration and the burden on a head family trust
Supreme Court, Aug. 14, 2025, 2025Da211608 (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: 공유물분할·소유권이전등기
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a share-transfer registration already made presume a lawful cause, and must the person who asserts that a head family entrusted the land to a member or another prove the trust, including that an organically organised head family existed at the time of acquisition?
Holding
It is. A real-estate registration is presumed, from its mere formal existence, to have been made on a lawful basis, and the person who asserts that another's name was used under a trust of name must prove it. A finding that a parcel belonged to a head family and was acquired through a trust in a member's or another person's name may be made only where an organically organised head family existed at the time of acquisition and either the process by which the parcel became that head family's property before acquisition is proved or so much indirect material exists that ownership by the head family from before the acquisition can be found in no other way. The Supreme Court found no such basis here, reversed the main-claim part of the judgment below and remanded the case to the Daejeon District Court, and dismissed the defendant head family's appeal.
Points at issue, verbatim
부동산등기의 추정력 및 명의신탁 사실에 관한 증명책임의 소재(=명의신탁등기를 주장하는 사람)
Unofficial English translation
The location of the burden of proof as to the presumptive effect of real property registration and the fact of entrustment of title (= the person asserting the registration of entrusted title)
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 본소 부분을 파기하고 이 부분 사건을 대전지방법원에 환송한다. 피고(반소원고, 선정당사자)의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it concerns the main claim, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court. The final appeal of the defendant (counterclaim plaintiff, selected party) is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
어떤 토지가 종중의 소유인데 사정 당시 종원 또는 타인 명의로 신탁하여 사정받은 것이라고 인정하기 위하여는 사정 당시 어느 정도의 유기적 조직을 가진 종중이 존재하였을 것과 사정 이전에 그 토지가 종중의 소유로 된 과정이나 내용이 증명되거나 또는 여러 정황으로 미루어 사정 이전부터 종중 소유로 인정할 수밖에 없는 많은 간접자료가 있을 때에 한하여 이를 인정할 수 있을 뿐이다
Unofficial English translation
In order to recognize that a certain land is owned by the clan community but was entrusted to the name of a clan member or another person and the confirmation of title was received in that name at the time of the confirmation, this may be recognized only where a clan community possessing a certain degree of organic organization existed at the time of the confirmation, and where the process or details by which the land came to be owned by the clan community prior to the confirmation is proved, or where there exist many indirect materials from which the land cannot but be recognized as owned by the clan community from prior to the confirmation
Factors
- 부동산등기의 추정력 및 명의신탁 사실에 관한 증명책임의 소재(=명의신탁등기를 주장하는 사람)
- 종중이 그 소유 토지를 타인 명의로 신탁하여 사정받은 것이라고 인정할 수 있는 경우
Unofficial English translation
• The location of the burden of proof as to the presumptive effect of real property registration and the fact of entrustment of title (= the person asserting the registration of entrusted title)
• A case in which it may be recognized that the clan community entrusted land it owned to another person's name and received the confirmation of title
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2002. 7. 26. 선고 2001다76731 판결(공2002하, 2054)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2001Da76731 decided July 26, 2002 (Gong 2002 Ha, 2054)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2002. 7. 26. 선고 2001다76731 판결(공2002하, 2054), 대법원 2010. 12. 9. 선고 2009다26596 판결(공2011상, 92), 대법원 2015. 10. 29. 선고 2012다84479 판결, 대법원 2016. 7. 22. 선고 2016다207928 판결(공2016하, 1220)
Burden of proof
The party asserting Stated in the decision
타인에게 명의를 신탁하여 등기하였다고 주장하는 사람은 그 명의신탁 사실에 대하여 증명할 책임을 진다
Unofficial English translation
A person who asserts that he or she entrusted the title to another person and registered it bears the burden of proof as to the fact of that entrustment of title
Open question and revisit condition
What degree of organic organisation must a head family show at the time of acquisition before its ownership of the land can be found?
The remand judgment of the Daejeon District Court on 2024Na211166, 211173 will show what evidence was accepted on the head family's organisation and its prior ownership of the parcels. A later Supreme Court decision stating how much indirect material suffices, or an amendment to Article 103 or Article 186 of the Civil Act, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The issue statement's reference to conditions for recognizing a clan title trust supports a requirements focus, while the order's partial reversal and dismissal support a focus on application to the case.
부동산등기의 추정력 및 명의신탁 사실에 관한 증명책임의 소재(=명의신탁등기를 주장하는 사람)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What degree of organic organisation must a head family show at the time of acquisition before its ownership of the land can be found?” vs Independent “How should the properties be partitioned on remand once the presumption supporting the registered shares is respected?”
The primary reading asks how organized the clan must have been at land adjudication, whereas the independent reading asks how the properties should be partitioned on remand.
부동산등기의 추정력 및 명의신탁 사실에 관한 증명책임의 소재(=명의신탁등기를 주장하는 사람)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 Daejeon District Court, in its judgment of 18 March 2025 (2024Na211166, 211173), held that the parcels were not the individual registrants' own property but were received under a trust of name from the head family to which they belonged, and so rejected the plaintiff's claim to partition the co-owned property. It also rejected both the primary and the alternative claims of the defendant head family, on the ground that the head family was not shown to have made a trust of name or to have possessed the parcels for twenty years.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the presumptive force of the share-transfer registrations had not been overturned. That the kinship of Persons 3, 5 and 4 is quite remote, that the designated parties for the defendant do not claim ownership, and that Person 3 registered in members' names at the time of the share transfer are not enough to reverse that presumption, and nothing showed whether an organically organised head family existed at the time of acquisition or that much indirect material supported its ownership. It held that the court below had misconceived the law on the presumptive force of registration, head families and trusts of name and had failed to make the necessary examination, and found no error in the part rejecting the defendant head family's claims, so that part of the appeal was dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which an organically organised head family is shown to have existed at the time the land was acquired.
- A case in which the process or content by which the land became the head family's property before acquisition is proved, or so much indirect material exists that ownership from before the acquisition can be found in no other way.
- A claim resting on ownership acquired by twenty years of possession rather than on a trust of name, which the Court reviewed only under existing law.
Record verification notes
Collect what shows that a head family with some organic organisation existed when the parcels were acquired, and trace how they became that head family's property before then, since that is where the party asserting the trust failed. Set the kinship distance among the registrants and the silence of the defendant's designated parties against the registered shares, and ask whether it suffices to overturn the presumption. Then confirm which part was appealed, as the main claim was reversed and the counterclaim left standing.
From the official text
Points at issue
부동산등기의 추정력 및 명의신탁 사실에 관한 증명책임의 소재(=명의신탁등기를 주장하는 사람) / 종중이 그 소유 토지를 타인 명의로 신탁하여 사정받은 것이라고 인정할 수 있는 경우
Unofficial English translation
The location of the burden of proof as to the presumptive effect of real property registration and the fact of entrustment of title (= the person asserting the registration of entrusted title) / A case in which it may be recognized that the clan community entrusted land it owned to another person's name and received the confirmation of title
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
원심판결 중 본소 부분을 파기하고 이 부분 사건을 대전지방법원에 환송한다. 피고(반소원고, 선정당사자)의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it concerns the main claim, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court. The final appeal of the defendant (counterclaim plaintiff, selected party) is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
민법 제31조, 제103조[명의신탁], 제186조, 제275조, 민사소송법 제202조, 제288조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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