(a) Registration of transfer of ownership by a judgment on constructive confession and fraud of property in lawsuit fraud;

(b) Whether an action for cancellation registration filed against the registered titleholder by asserting that the cause is void, and whether the action for cancellation registration is commenced;

A. The so-called, a person who conspired with another person to file a lawsuit against the other person and received a constructive confession and thereby the registration of transfer of ownership of real estate is consistent with the opinion of the other party to the lawsuit, and it cannot be deemed that the real owner of the real estate acquired the real estate from the other party to the lawsuit, and even if there is a separate owner of the real estate, the real owner of the real estate is not subject to the transfer of ownership from the real owner based on the constructive confession judgment

B. In a case where the defendant filed a lawsuit for registration of preservation of ownership or cancellation of registration of transfer against the registered titleholder under the name of another person who is not the principal, even if he or she won the registration of the registered titleholder, the registration of the registered titleholder is cancelled, and thus, it cannot be deemed that he or she obtained property or pecuniary benefits by deceiving the court, since he or she does not recover or acquire any right or exempt any obligation on the above real estate, and therefore, the filing of the lawsuit for registration of cancellation cannot be deemed to have commenced

(b)Article 347(b) of the Criminal Code;

B. Supreme Court Decision 81Do1451 delivered on December 8, 1981

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Ji-ok

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 81No5046 delivered on May 6, 1983

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

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendant conspired with the co-defendant 1 in collusion with the court of first instance that he owned the network of co-defendant 2. However, the present real estate stated in the attached list No. 1 which is owned by the non-indicted 1 and cultivated by the non-indicted 1 was destroyed at 6.25 times, and no restoration registration has been made after the registry, etc. was made, then the court of first instance filed a lawsuit claiming transfer registration against the co-defendant 2/10 shares of the above land against the government branch of the Seoul District Court of Seoul District Court, and the first instance court of first instance had the court of first instance mislead the court of this fact that the request was true by deceiving the above court of first instance to have the above defendant win the above real estate in the name of the above co-defendant 3, which was the non-indicted 1's possession of the above real estate, and acquired the above real estate by deceiving the above real estate under the name of the co-defendant 1 and the original registration in the name of the court of the defendant.

2. However, with respect to the above (1) fraud, the so-called litigation fraud refers to deceiving the court and thereby obtaining a favorable judgment from the other party, and thereby acquiring property or pecuniary profits from the other party. As determined by the court below, if the defendant in collusion with the co-defendant of the first instance court in collusion with the co-defendant of the first instance court, and the co-defendant of the first instance court was sentenced to constructive confession by failing to appear on the date for pleading, the registration of transfer according to the above judgment is in accord with the intention of the co-defendant of the first instance court, who is the other party to the lawsuit, and it cannot be deemed that he acquired the above real

Even if the real ownership of the above real estate was determined by the court below, it is clear that there is no room to view that the defendant acquired the above real estate from the above non-indicted, since the defendant was not transferred the ownership or ownership of the above real estate from the above non-indicted in the lawsuit between the defendant and the co-defendant in the court

Ultimately, since the facts above (1) are clear that it does not constitute fraud, the first inquiry group on this point is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of litigation fraud.

3. Next, as to the aforementioned (2) entry in the original copy of the notarial deed and the fact of its exercise, since the police investigation conducted to the court of first instance, the defendant denies the criminal intent of the co-defendant in the false entry and exercise that he had known to the co-defendant in the name of the deceased co-defendant in the first instance trial since the real estate recorded in the notarial deed from the police investigation to the court of first instance was registered in the name of the court of first instance on the old land cadastre, and the criminal intent of the co-defendant in the first instance trial was denied. In light of the record of the previous land cadastre which was bound in the investigation records and the public trial records, the real estate listed in the table No. 1 (a) through (22) above was entered in the old land cadastre restored in the name of the co-defendant in the name of the deceased co-defendant in the first instance trial or in the divided land from this, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant's defense that each of the above real estate was the inherited property owned by the co-defendant in the first instance trial is not known.

In addition, since the real estate in the list No. 1 (23) through (27) above is not known in the record, it is necessary to examine the old land cadastre and examine whether the defendant's appeal is appropriate.

After all, the judgment of the court below has an error of law that recognized the criminal intent of the defendant without evidence due to the misunderstanding of the value of evidence or the incomplete hearing.

4.As to the fact that the above (3) has attempted fraud, the Health Expenses;

In the case of this case where the defendant filed a lawsuit against the non-party 2 and 3 who has filed a registration of preservation or transfer of the ownership of the real estate stated in the above separate sheet against the non-party 2 and 3 by claiming the invalidation of the cause of the registration in the name of the plaintiff in the first instance trial against the non-party 2 and 3, even if he won the registration of the registered titleholder, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's co-defendant obtained the property or pecuniary benefits by deceiving the court since he did not recover or acquire any right or be exempted from his obligation on the above real estate. Thus, unlike the above opinion, it is evident that the filing of the lawsuit for registration of cancellation cannot be deemed to have commenced the execution of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do1451, Dec. 8, 1981).

5. Ultimately, as pointed out above, the judgment of the court below against the illegality of the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained, and the case is reversed and remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)