action against the deceased person and the

In a lawsuit fraud, the judgment of the court, which is the defrauded, should have the content and effect in lieu of the dispositive act of the victim, and, except for this, it shall not be deemed that there is an act of giving property by mistake, and thus, it does not constitute fraud. Therefore, if the defendant's lawsuit was filed against the deceased person, the judgment against such deceased person shall not take effect according to the content thereof, and thus, it shall not be deemed that

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do2386 Decided October 28, 1986

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 86No7774 delivered on March 5, 1987

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

We examine ex officio.

The judgment of the court below has maintained the judgment of the court below that applied the defendant's act of this case to fraud.

However, in so-called litigation fraud, the judgment of the court, which is the defrauded, should have the content and effect in lieu of the victim's dispositive act, and in other cases, there is no act of giving property by mistake, and thus, it does not constitute fraud. Therefore, as the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, if the defendant's lawsuit of this case against the deceased 13 persons other than the non-indicted 13 persons, as determined by the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment against the deceased person cannot be said to have effect on the deceased person, and therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment on the deceased person has no effect on the deceased person's heir, and therefore it constitutes fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do2

Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on litigation fraud in the conciliation division which maintained the judgment of the court of first instance, which had the intent to commit fraud, and thereby, committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, without determining the defendant's grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul District Criminal Court (Seoul District Court). It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)