2019Gohap78(a) Any false entry into public electromagnetic records, etc.

(b) Events such as false statements and electromagnetic records; and

1. A, agriculture

AAA in terms of residential safety;

(B) BB in the case of inside the place of registration

2. B, Agriculture

CCC in the case of residential safety training

DDD if the place of registration is removed from the place of registration;

3. C, Agriculture

Residential EE, E-E

(B) BB in the case of inside the place of registration

Gu Jae Jae-in (Lawsuits) and ambi (Public Trial)

Attorney Park Young-young (for the Defendants)

September 20, 2019

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Facts charged

The defendants are members of the clan D (hereinafter referred to as the "family").

From around May 11, 2012, the Defendants had had a dispute with E, F, etc. regarding the real estate owned by the clan, and at the special meeting of the clan called on May 11, 2014, Defendant A was elected as the chairperson of the clan, Defendant B was appointed as the general secretary for financial affairs and advisory members, and Defendant C was appointed as the general secretary for the general affairs of the clan. However, at the special meeting of the clan called on April 12, 2015, the Defendants were dismissed from office by the chairperson and the general secretary of the clan, and the representatives of the clan were newly appointed by G, financial affairs B, general secretary for the general affairs of the clan. The Defendants denied the validity of the resolution of the special meeting of the clan on April 12, 2015, and excluded the above F, and again convened the special meeting of the clan, followed Defendant B by lending money to the clan for the clan business of the clan, and established the provisional registration against Defendant C as a collateral for the clan’s ownership of the clan.

Where it is intended to hold a clan meeting, the legitimate convening authority shall convene a meeting, notify all the members of the clan who are available for the clan to convene a general meeting, and since the property of the clan belongs to the collective ownership of the members of the clan, if there is any provision prescribed by the clan rules in advance concerning the management and disposition of the clan, it shall be followed, and if there is no provision regarding such provision, it shall be decided by a resolution of the general

The defendants prepared a resolution on June 14, 2015 that, without going through lawful procedures for convening a clan meeting, only 34 members of the clan who were dismissed from the chairperson of the clan was convened as the chairperson of the clan, on June 14, 2015, for the land owned by the clan in Ansan-si, which is the property of the clan by holding an extraordinary clan meeting at the Ansan-si, or at the cafeteria-si, which is owned by the clan, the defendants prepared a provisional registration for the land owned by the clan; and on the land owned by the Ansan-si, Ansan-si, BB, which is the property of the clan; and on June 14, 2015, it is null and void because there is a defect in the convening procedure because the defendant A, who was dismissed from the chairperson of the clan, was an extraordinary general meeting convened as

1. The crime committed on June 30, 2015;

Defendant A and Defendant B had a staff member in charge of being aware of the aforementioned circumstances enter into a registry office of Suwon District Court located in Ansan-si on June 30, 2015, using a clan resolution, etc. which is null and void under the above circumstances, so that the transfer of ownership security registration for Defendant B as a provisional registration authority is completed on the register book of the BB land in Ansan-si, Chungcheongnam-si, BB on June 28, 2015, on the ground of a promise to return a substitute property, and around that time, the above registry had him keep the above registry on which the above fraudulent facts were recorded.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to make a false report to the public official and had the public official enter false facts in the electronic register, which is a public electronic record, and around that time, had the public official keep the former register stating false facts, and exercised it.

2. The crime committed on August 3, 2015;

Defendant A and Defendant C had a staff-in-charge enter into a provisional registration right to claim transfer of ownership on June 28, 2015, based on the ground of the promise to return the substitute goods to Defendant C on the register of the land in Chungcheongnam-si, which is the cause of the promise to return the substitute goods on August 28, 2015. At around that time, Defendant C had the above registry keep the above registry wherein the aforementioned fraudulent facts are recorded.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to make a false report to the public official and had the public official enter false facts in the electronic register, which is a public electronic record, and around that time, had the public official keep the former register stating false facts, and exercised it.

2. Determination

A. Relevant precedents

The crime of false entry in the authentic copy of a notarial deed is established when a public official makes a false report to a public official to enter false facts in the authentic copy of a notarial deed. If there is any defect that exists any matter entered in the authentic copy of a notarial deed or exists in appearance, such entry shall constitute a false entry (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do4910, Aug. 25, 2005). However, in cases where a registration of change is applied for the indication of a registered titleholder according to a resolution of a general meeting of non-corporate groups under the Civil Act, it shall be determined according to whether such act constitutes an act that causes false entry in the authentic copy of a notarial deed, regardless of its judicial effect (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do3584, Oct. 15, 2004; 2007Do7555, Nov. 13, 2008).

(b) Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this Court, the following facts are acknowledged:

① From around 2012, the Defendants of the clan have been disputing E, F, etc. regarding the real estate owned by the clan, and Defendant A was elected as the president of the clan at the special meeting of the clan called on May 11, 2014, and Defendant B was appointed as the general secretary in charge of financial affairs and advisory members, and Defendant C was appointed as the general secretary.

② However, at the special meeting of the clan called on April 12, 2015, Defendant A was employed by the president of the clan, and Defendant A was newly appointed as the representative of the clan G, B, and the general secretary of the clan.

(3) The E sent 95 members of the clan with a notification for convening an extraordinary general meeting, and held an extraordinary general meeting on May 2, 2015. At the above extraordinary general meeting, I was appointed as the representative of the clan E, H, and auditor from the above extraordinary general meeting.

④ On April 12, 2015, the Defendants denied the validity of the resolution of the special meeting of the clan of the Defendant A by the president of the clan on April 12, 2015, the Defendants decided to set up a provisional registration for the real estate owned by Defendant B and Defendant C, as stated in the facts charged, while the 33 members attend the special meeting of the clan, to exclude the F, etc. and to convene a new special meeting of the clan, and then to set up a provisional registration for the real estate owned by the Defendant B and Defendant C, as stated in the facts charged.

Since then, J held an extraordinary general meeting on January 10, 2016 and passed a resolution to confirm the resolution of the extraordinary general meeting on June 14, 2015.

④ On the other hand, E held a special general meeting on January 17, 2016 and passed a resolution to restore a provisional registration made in the name of Defendant C and B, as described in the facts charged, to the original state according to the resolution on June 14, 2015.

1) Defendant B filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a resolution, such as an extraordinary general meeting of the family on April 12, 2015, which Defendant B led and convened by E against the clan, and on January 17, 2016 (2015Gahap9136, Suwon District Court Decision 2015Gahap9136), but lost the judgment. The judgment became final and conclusive on April 13, 2017.

In the above judgment, the above court determined that the defect in the convening procedure was invalid on May 11, 2014, led by the defendant's side, and on January 10, 2016, with respect to the extraordinary general meeting of the defendant on January 10, 2016.

C. Determination

In light of the following facts revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, insofar as Defendant C and B made a resolution on the provisional registration of the real estate in the name of the clan at the special meeting of the clan on June 14, 2015, as stated in the facts charged, it is difficult to conclude that the above registration was false, insofar as the above resolution was made for the establishment of a provisional registration of the real estate in the name of the clan as stated in the facts charged, and it is insufficient to find that the Defendants knew that the above resolution was lawful and invalid at the time of the above provisional registration, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① From around 2012, the Defendants had a dispute with E, F, etc. surrounding the real estate owned by a clan, and had been challenged while denying the validity of the extraordinary general meeting held by the other party. Therefore, it seems difficult to understand the validity of the extraordinary general meeting held by each party at the time of the extraordinary general meeting.

② Defendant A was elected as the president of the clan of May 11, 2014. On June 14, 2015, Defendant A passed a resolution to make a provisional registration with Defendant B and C on the real estate recorded in the facts charged at the special clan of June 14, 2015. On January 10, 2016, Defendant A passed a resolution to ratification the said resolution at the special clan of June 14, 2015 at the special clan of June 14, 2015.

③ In addition to securing the claim against Defendant B and C’s clans as stated in the facts charged, the Defendants’ establishment of provisional registration on real estate in the name of the clan was aimed at preventing them from arbitrarily disposing of real estate in the course of internal disputes with E, etc.

④ Although the Defendants filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of an extraordinary general meeting held by E, etc. and ruled against the lawsuit, the Defendants held the extraordinary general meeting on January 7, 2018 with the permission to convene an extraordinary general meeting with the permission of 2017 Vihap110 in this court after the judgment of loss became final and conclusive, and completed the resolution, such as dismissing E from the chairperson of the said extraordinary general meeting, appointing Defendant C as the general secretary, and Defendant B as the general secretary in charge of general affairs.

3. Conclusion

Since all of the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, a judgment of innocence is rendered against the Defendants under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the summary of the judgment of innocence under the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act is not publicly announced. It is so decided as per

Judges Park So-young