[1] In a case where a person who received a donation of land specifies the date of transfer as the day before the date of transfer, whether the donation constitutes "false" under Article 13 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership (negative

[2] The case holding that even if the transferor or the cause of transfer knew that it was different from the actual situation, there was no awareness about the falsity under Article 13 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Real Estate Ownership in light

[1] Since the Defendant received a donation of land from an external investigation team where an owner on the register was an owner on the date included in the scope of application of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership, the Defendant cannot be deemed to constitute a falsity under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership on the ground that the date of

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the defendant, who was in a legitimate position entitled to the registration of ownership transfer under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer, knew that the transfer date or the transfer cause is different from the actual one, cannot be deemed to have been aware of the falsity under Article 13 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for Ownership Transfer, etc

[1] Article 13(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Real Estate Ownership / [2] Articles 13(1) and 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Real Estate Ownership

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 84Do1177 delivered on July 24, 1984 (Gong1984, 1517), Supreme Court Decision 84Do81 delivered on September 11, 1984 (Gong1984, 1670), Supreme Court Decision 85Do1308 delivered on September 10, 1985 (Gong1985, 1369) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 88Do517 delivered on November 8, 198 (Gong198, 151)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 96No950 delivered on August 1, 1996

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below maintained the first instance court's finding that the defendant had completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership under the name of the defendant on Oct. 10, 1994, and determined that the defendant's act constitutes a case where the defendant prepared a false guarantee certificate and obtained a false confirmation certificate under the aforesaid Act, since the defendant's act was different in terms of taxes such as gift tax, possibility of infringing legal reserve of inheritance, possibility of cancellation of donation contract without document, etc., since the defendant's act constitutes a case where the defendant's act was conducted by preparing or using a false confirmation certificate under the above Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership.

However, the Defendant received the gift of this case from the above non-indicted 1, who was the owner of the above land on the date and time included in the scope of the above special measures. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the date of transfer was a false statement under the above special measures because it was inappropriate to specify the transfer date as one day before (see Supreme Court Decisions 85Do1308, Sept. 10, 1985; 88Do517, Nov. 8, 198). Meanwhile, the Defendant merely knew that the transfer registration was made under the special measures for transfer, and did not know how the transfer cause was written under the above special measures for transfer, and even if the Defendant knew that he had no awareness of the above transfer cause, it cannot be seen that there was a false statement or false statement in accordance with Article 17 of the above Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do141, Sept. 10, 198; 2000Du17814, Jun. 17, 2001).

Therefore, the decision of the court below that found the defendant guilty of violating the above special measures is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the above special measures, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the recognition of falsity, or by misunderstanding the legal principles of the above special measures, which affected the conclusion of judgment

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)