Whether Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act is violated where a seller receives money from a buyer due to cancellation of registration of seizure of real estate for sale.

If it is found that a registration of seizure has been made after the sale and purchase of real estate, the seller is obligated to cancel the registration of seizure to the buyer and acquire the ownership without any restriction on disposal. Therefore, the cancellation of attachment is considered to be a seller's own business. Even if the buyer received all expenses for the cancellation of attachment from the buyer, it does not fall under Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, which is premised on another person's case or affairs.

Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Law No. 2452), Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 80No398 decided August 26, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (Law No. 2452, Jan. 25, 1973) refers to cases or affairs handled by a public official under Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (Act No. 2452, Jan. 25, 1973) and even if the defendant received money from others under the pretext of making a solicitation

According to the records, as duly determined by the court below, the defendant found that the registration of seizure was made due to a default of national taxes on the real estate sold by himself to Kim Jong-soo and Tae Taesan, etc., and was received money from the above purchaser as part of the expenses for the cancellation of seizure. In the case where the registration of seizure was made at the latest after the sale of the real estate without any restriction on the seizure, the seller is obligated to cancel the registration of seizure to the buyer and to acquire the ownership without any restriction on the seizure. Thus, the cancellation of the seizure is deemed to be the seller's own business. Thus, the court below's decision that the above act of receiving the money does not fall under Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which is a premise of another person's case or business, is just and there is no error of law

In addition, even after examining the record, the court below is just in holding that the amount received between the defendant and the above non-indicted is not received under the pretext of solicitation of cancellation of attachment, such as the contents of the public prosecution, and there is no error in the misapprehension of judgment of evidence like the theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)