Despite the existence of other successors at the time of the death of the inheritee, if the predecessor has the guarantor prepare a guarantee of the land purchased by him/her as he/she directly purchased the land.

The de facto transferee of unregistered real estate under Article 10 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer shall include not only the de facto transferee but also his inheritor at the time when the denial of the defendant was deceased, despite the existence of Dong-in as well as his inheritor at the time of his death, if the above Gap had the guarantor prepare a guarantee certificate as if the defendant directly purchased the land purchased from the non-indicted on December 31, 1974 from the non-indicted, then if the defendant had the guarantor prepare the guarantee certificate, then the defendant was not in the status of independently inheritance at the time of the above death of the defendant, and therefore the above act of the defendant is prepared a false guarantee certificate that may harm the above rights and thus constitutes Article 13 (1) 3 of the Act on Special Measures.

Articles 10 and 13 of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Real Estate Ownership;

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 1308 decided Sep. 10, 1985 (Gong765, 1369)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (87 High Court Decision 295)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 250,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 5,000 into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer, etc., and thereby acquitted the defendant.

On November 9, 1950, the court below found that the defendant was not guilty of the ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-indicted 1,437 square meters (hereinafter "the land of this case") of the non-indicted 1,210 on the non-indicted 1's purchase of the above real estate under the name of the non-indicted 2, 3, and 4 of the non-indicted 1's purchase of the above real estate in the name of the non-indicted 1, 7 of the non-indicted 1, 1950 and the non-indicted 1's purchase of the above real estate under the non-indicted 1's name and the non-indicted 9's purchase of the above real estate by the non-indicted 1, 7, the non-indicted 9's purchase of the above real estate by submitting the above false guarantee certificate to the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 6's purchase and sale of the real estate and the non-indicted 1's purchase of the real estate within 98's original evidence.

However, even if the deceased non-indicted 7, who was the defendant's attached, purchased the land in this case lawfully, the deceased non-indicted 7, Jun. 12, 197 at the time when the deceased non-indicted 7 died (the defendant was in a trial before June 25, and before the deceased non-indicted 7's death occurred in the trial, the witness Non-indicted 8, and Non-indicted 9, etc.), but it is difficult to accept the defendant's statement about this point. Therefore, the deceased non-indicted 7's death time can not be recognized as June 12, 197 in accordance with the contents of a certified copy of the family register, and the heir's non-indicted 10 (the death of September 26, 1982), who was the defendant's birth, was recognized as the contents of the family register copy, and it cannot be viewed as being erroneous or harmful to the defendant's right to be found as being not being recorded in the judgment of the court below because it did not affect the defendant's right to be recorded in the above article 36.

Defendant is a person engaged in agriculture;

1. On November 9, 1950, Nonindicted 1 submitted one copy of the letter of guarantee to the Namwon-gun on December 2, 1980, and submitted one copy of the letter of guarantee to the Namwon-gun on December 9, 1980, even if the Defendant did not directly purchase the 1,437 square meters at the 1210 cubic meters of the 1,437 square meters of the 1210 cubic Republic of Korea from Nonindicted 1, the Defendant purchased it by himself, and let the Defendant prepare one copy of the false letter of guarantee on December 9, 1980;

2. On June 15, 1981, the Jeonju District Court submitted to the Southern District Court of the Republic of Korea a document related to the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate and exercised it.

The above-mentioned facts shall:

1. Statements corresponding thereto in part by the defendant in this court;

1. Statements corresponding thereto in the first trial record of the court below;

1. Statement corresponding to the interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Each statement in each protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 4 regarding preparation of judicial police assistant officers, corresponding to this.

1. The facts in the judgment can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of a certified copy of family register in preparation of a certified copy of family register in the Namwon-gun Chapter.

Article 13 (1) 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership; Article 13 (1) 4 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership; Article 13 (1) 4 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership; Article 13 (1) 1 of the same Act that has exercised the above certification; Article 13 (1) 1 of the same Act that has been issued with a copy of the certification; and Article 37 that has exercised the certification; Article 37 (1) 4 of the same Act; Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes that have been punished by a fine among the prescribed penalties; Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act; Article 38 (1) and Article 50 of the Criminal Act provides that the defendant is first guilty and continuously occupies the land of this case for several hundred years; Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act shall apply the amount of fine to be converted to KRW 2500 and KRW 300 (2) of the above.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Young-il (Presiding Judge)