[부동산소유권이전등기등에관한특별조치법위반][공1999.5.15.(82),933]
In cases where the defendant purchased real estate from Gap due to a juristic act before December 31, 1985, which is subject to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with Gap's certificate that he purchased it directly from the decedent Gap who is the registered titleholder, whether it constitutes the case where the defendant obtained a written confirmation by fraudulent means under
In cases where the defendant purchased real estate from Gap due to a juristic act before December 31, 1985, which is subject to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership with Gap's direct purchase of real estate from Gap, a registered titleholder, the registration of transfer shall be made, considering the purport of Articles 1, 6, and 10 (1) of the aforementioned Act, and the entry of the transferor or transferee in the written application for the issuance of the written confirmation shall include not only the transferor or transferee himself but also his heir, and the date of sale shall also be deemed to include the juristic act between them before December 31, 1985, which is subject to the above Act, unless it is likely to harm the rights of other interested persons, even if the date of sale is specified, it shall not be deemed to constitute a case where the defendant obtained a written
Article 13(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Law No. 4502, Dec. 31, 1994)
Defendant
Prosecutor
Gwangju High Court Decision 97No629 delivered on April 8, 1998
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the above 63 square meters (per 19 square meters) were owned by non-indicted 1's original 50 square meters for the non-indicted 1's 63 square meters for the above real estate, which is the real estate of this case, at least 50 years before the death of the defendant, the non-indicted 1 purchased the above real estate under the name of the non-indicted 1's father and owned it with 3 lots including this case's real estate, which were owned by the non-indicted 1's 9's 9's 9's 9's 19's 9's 19's 9's 19's 9's 197's 9's 197's 9's 197's 19's 9's 19's 9's 9's 19's 7's 19's 19's 7's 's 19'''''''''s 9''''''''''.
The appeal is without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)