logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1988. 3. 8. 선고 87도2629 판결
[부동산소유권이전등기등에관한특별조치법위반][공1988.5.1.(823),725]
Main Issues

Where a person without purchase of land has been issued a letter of guarantee purchased under the direction of the land owner, whether the violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate

Summary of Judgment

Even though Eul without purchasing the land from Gap for the purpose of completing the registration of ownership transfer for the above land in his own front, Eul's issuance of a two guarantee for the purchase of the land from Gap is in accordance with the direction of Seogrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgs

[Reference Provisions]

Article 13 (1) 3 of the Act on Special Measures for Transfer, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 82Do3137 Decided August 23, 1983

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 87No1939 delivered on November 27, 1987

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence cited by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, it cannot be said that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the facts of the judgment of the court below with sufficient proof of criminal facts

Even though the defendant, who did not purchase each of the lands of this case from Kim Jong-chul, was issued a letter of guarantee for the purchase of each of the lands of this case at his own discretion in order to complete the registration of ownership transfer for each of the lands of this case, it is without any change in the establishment of crimes falling under Article 13 (1) 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate, regardless of whether the indication on the registration based on it complies with the substantive relations (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do3137 delivered on August 23, 1983). It is groundless to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)

arrow