Whether Article 13 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate falls under Article 13 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate where

Where a successor to real estate has completed the registration of transfer of ownership with a written confirmation as if he/she was directly transferred from the transferor, he/she shall not be the person issued the said written confirmation by fraudulent means under Article 13 (1) of the Act on Special Measures

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

Supreme Court Decision 84Do1177 delivered on July 24, 1984, 84Do81 delivered on September 11, 1984, 85Do1308 Delivered on September 10, 1985, 88Do517 Delivered on November 8, 1988

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan High Court Decision 88No555 delivered on January 12, 1989

The appeal shall be dismissed.

As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

According to the decision of the court below, the defendant purchased the land in this case, which was owned by the deceased Kim Tae on August 15, 1912, and died on December 20, 1954 after he purchased the land in this case on August 1935, and the father, non-indicted 2, 1955, his heir, died on December 4, 1955, and the defendant succeeded to the land, and the defendant directly purchased the land on April 10, 1969, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in accordance with the procedure stipulated in the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership (Act No. 3094).

Therefore, the case of this case where a real estate transferee's heir obtained a confirmation as if he was directly transferred from the transferor and completed the registration of transfer of ownership shall not be deemed to be a person who was issued the said confirmation by false means as provided in Article 13 (1) of the above Measures Act (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do17, Jul. 24, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 84Do81, Sep. 11, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 85Do1308, Sept. 10, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 88Do517, Nov. 8, 1988); and the court below supported the judgment of the first instance court that acquitted the defendant with the same purport is just and contrary to the precedents, and it is not reasonable to the grounds for appeal.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)