logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1989. 6. 13. 선고 88도1835 판결
[부동산등기법위반][공1989.8.1.(853),1100]
Main Issues

The meaning of guarantee under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Summary of Judgment

For the purpose of Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, the term "guarantee" means confirming as a good manager that a person who makes an application for registration or a title holder on the registry is the same person.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 78Da296 Decided May 23, 1978

Escopics

Defendant 1 and one other

upper and high-ranking persons

Defendants

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 88No2511 delivered on September 14, 1988

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the fact-finding of the court below is acceptable and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and the guarantee stipulated in Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act refers to the confirmation as a good manager that the applicant for registration and the title holder on the registry are the same person (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da296 delivered on May 23, 1978). Thus, there is no reason to criticize the judgment of the court below in light of the contrary, since the defendants' trust and trust at the request of a judicial clerk dealing with the relevant registration case, or knowing that the name of the person liable for registration is the same person as the person liable for registration, or that the applicant for registration does not know who is the person liable for registration under Article 186-2 of the same Act, even though he is the person liable for registration, it cannot be said that the guarantee under Article 49 of the same Act is not a case where the person liable for registration is the same person.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)

arrow