Defendant

There was no nominal trust agreement between A and C, and there was only a mere agreement on the resale of real estate.

C does not actually bear the purchase fund of the instant land, but lends funds to Defendant A to purchase V to the Agricultural Cooperative Asset Management Company.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. The lower court determined as follows: (a) Defendant A purchased the instant land in a voluntary auction procedure as stated in the facts constituting a crime (the subject who purchased the instant land by himself/herself, B, but the subject who tried to build and operate a golf course is not Defendant A; (b) Defendant A was unable to acquire it due to the fact that part of the instant land was farmland, and as Defendant A purchased it in a collective auction procedure and entered into an agreement at the later time to register the transfer of ownership (see, e.g., evidence record 386,440), thereby making a lease of V purchase fund to Defendant A’s agricultural cooperative asset management company; and (c) this is against the legislative purpose of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, which is an evasion of the law, which is the Gangwon-do law, and is contrary to the legislative purpose of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name; and (c) Defendant A’s act similar to the ownership of the instant land was conducted by the prosecutor in a non-prosecution disposition by the prosecutor, or was ordinarily acquired a golf course or its site by mistake.

§ 23.