A. Each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) is a state property managed by the National Tax Service and the registration of ownership preservation has been completed in the name of the Plaintiff. B is a public official in charge of the sale of state property.

B. B, while taking charge of the procedure for non-sale of state-owned land, including the instant land, forged a certificate of sale, etc. as if the said land was sold to C through a public sale procedure, on the ground of false bidders, such as one’s own form C, etc., and eventually, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of sale as of March 3, 198 under the name of C on July 8, 1974.

C. After that, on May 12, 198, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of sale as of April 25, 198, and later on December 2, 2008, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of sale as of November 25, 2008.

On the other hand, B was prosecuted for committing a crime by misappropriation of the names of family members, relatives (includingC) or persons, and was convicted of a conviction.

(Supreme Court Decision 94Do228) . [Grounds for recognition] A, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number), 6, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. In full view of the facts of recognition as to the cause of claim and the contents of Article 7(1) of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 2950, Dec. 31, 1976; hereinafter the same) (an employee engaged in affairs concerning State property shall not acquire, or exchange with his own property, the State property disposed of, or not to exchange with, his own property: Provided, That this shall not apply in a case where the competent minister’s permission was obtained) and Article 7(2) (hereinafter “the act in violation of the provisions of the preceding paragraph”) which are mandatory provisions of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 2950, Dec. 31, 1976).