"Not a Gift, but Entrusted Land": Husband Sues to Reclaim Property After Separation

A man who filed a lawsuit to reclaim land he had gifted to his spouse, claiming it was actually a case of "nominal trust" rather than a gift during their divorce proceedings, has received a ruling from the Supreme Court that effectively overturns his previous victory.

The First Division of the Supreme Court (presided over by Justice Seo Gyeong-hwan) recently overturned the original ruling in favor of the plaintiff, A, in his lawsuit against his ex-wife, B, for the transfer of ownership registration, and remanded the case to the Cheongju District Court.

After his father passed away, A inherited a portion of the land in 2007 and acquired full ownership of the property in July 2016 after receiving the remaining shares from other co-heirs.

In May 2018, A transferred a portion of the land to his then-spouse, B, through a gift registration. Five years later, in September 2023, the couple began living apart and eventually divorced in February 2025.

During their separation, A filed a lawsuit against B, arguing that the transfer was not a gift but a nominal trust for tax-saving purposes. He claimed that since the nominal trust had been terminated, the ownership of the land should be transferred back to him.

The core issue of the lawsuit was whether the land had been genuinely gifted to B.

The first trial court ruled that it was indeed a gift, not a nominal trust, based on the fact that B had paid local taxes on the land and was responsible for its cultivation and management.

However, the second trial court overturned this decision and ruled in favor of A.

The second court based its decision on the fact that the land in question contained the graves of A's ancestors, and that the co-heirs had agreed for A to become the sole owner to manage the land and later distribute the proceeds from its sale.

The court also noted that A had been in possession of the title deed since the registration of the land transfer, had paid for the registration costs, and had paid all taxes related to the land.

The Supreme Court overturned the second court's decision, ruling that it was not a nominal trust.

The Supreme Court pointed out that there was no evidence to support A's claims that his ancestors' graves were located on the land or that he had reached an agreement with the co-heirs regarding sole ownership of the property.

Furthermore, the court determined that since the title deed was kept in the home shared by A and B, it could not be concluded that A held it exclusively. It also noted that there was a high possibility that the taxes related to the land were paid from the couple's joint assets.

In addition, the court highlighted that A had not asserted any rights regarding the land shares until the divorce issues arose.

(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.