信託是一個法律關係（忠實關係），受託人必須為受益人的利益，而管理或處分其依此忠實關係而保有的財產。依信託法第四條規定，以不動產為信託財產所成立的信託，非經登記，不得對抗第三人。因不動產信託登記係採登記對抗主義，與我國一般不動產權利變更登記案件性質不同，使基層地政機關受理登記時在登記的審查和登記的效力面臨前所未有的難題。目前的不動產信託登記，是就信託財產先辦所有權登記，再註記為信託財產，即在其他登記事項欄記明信託財產及委託人身分，信託內容詳信託專簿。目前的登記作法，是否能夠確保實現信託委託人創設信託的目的，對於受益人是否有保障，現行登記制度有何缺點，都可經由整理分析審判實務的見解加以得知，因此，最高法院對不動產信託登記的相關判決即值得研究。

”Trust” is a fiduciary relation, in which the trustee is the holder of the title to property subject to an equitable obligation to keep or use the property for the benefit of the beneficiary. According to the Article 4 of the Trust Act, any trust case concerning real estate cannot be effective against third party without registration. Trust registration is a requirement of being effective against third party. It is not the requirement to be valid, differentiating from the registration of the title transfer of real property. The registrar faces unprecedented difficulty in review of the application and the effect of registration. The current practice of trust is to transfer the title of real property, then label it as trust property. Whether the current practice can fulfill the purpose of the settler to create the trust, or the interest of the beneficiary can be protected, or the current practice has drawbacks, can be explored from analyzing the decisions of the Supreme Court. For this reason, the Supreme Court's decisions concerning the registration of real property is worthy of exploration.