[1] In a case where one of the co-inheritorss of the actual transferor and the transferee, even though there are several successors of the actual transferor and the transferee, actually one of the co-inheritors of the actual transferor, obtained a written confirmation and used it, whether it violates the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (affirmative)

[2] Where the registration of transfer of ownership is a valid registration that conforms to the substantive legal relationship even if the procedure defect exists or the grounds for registration are different from the actual legal relationship, the part of the crime of false entry of the original copy of the authentic deed and the crime of the

[3] In a case where the ownership transfer registration is not consistent with the substantive rights at the time of the registration, but it later accords with the substantive rights due to the consent, approval, etc. by the interested parties, the intent of the crime of false entry in the original notarial deed and the crime of

[1] The entry of the transferor or transferee in the letter of guarantee and the letter of confirmation under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership Transfer includes not only the transferor or transferee, but also the inheritor. Thus, insofar as there is no room for registration of false matters likely to harm the rights of other persons with a legitimate interest, such as the case where the transferor's heir entered that the transferee was acquired by transfer from the heir, it shall not be deemed to constitute a case where the certificate is issued by false means or a false certificate is prepared. However, even though there are several successors of the real estate, the above letter of guarantee and the letter of confirmation are different from the actual co-inheritors of the transferor, and if one of the co-inheritors of the actual transferee was used with the certificate by stating that the actual transferee was acquired by transfer of all the real estate, the reason for the transfer is used with a false certificate different from the actual co-inheritors, and thus,

[2] Even if the transfer registration of ownership is procedural defect or different from the actual one, if the registration is to conform to the substantive legal relationship or is valid in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, the crime of false entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed and the crime of uttering shall not be established. However, this is limited to the case where the registration is valid in accordance with the substantive legal relationship at the time of completion of the transfer registration of ownership.

[3] If a registration is not consistent with the substantive right relationship at the time of registration for transfer of ownership, it does not affect the establishment of the original authentic document and the crime of uttering, even if it conforms to the substantive right relationship due to the consent or ratification by the interested parties later.

[1] Article 13 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership / [2] Articles 228 and 229 of the Criminal Act / [3] Articles 228 and 229 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Do1308 delivered on September 10, 198 (Gong1985, 1369) Supreme Court Decision 89Do341 delivered on December 22, 1989 (Gong1990, 423) / [2/3] Supreme Court Decision 84Do2285 delivered on December 11, 1984 (Gong1985, 224 delivered on September 28, 1990) Supreme Court Decision 90Do427 delivered on September 28, 199 (Gong190, 2242) (Gong196, 1772)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Sap-pap

Daegu High Court Decision 96No338 delivered on December 16, 1997

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the evidence of the first instance court and the court below in light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below is just and there is no error of law in finding facts in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

2. The entry of the transferor or transferee in the letter of guarantee and the letter of confirmation under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership Transfer includes not only the transferor or transferee, but also the inheritor. Thus, unless there is room for registration of false matters likely to harm the rights of other persons with a legitimate interest, such as the case where the transferor's heir entered that the transferee would have acquired the entire real estate from the heir, it shall not be deemed that it constitutes a case where the certificate is issued by false means or a false certificate is prepared (see Supreme Court Decisions 89Do341, Dec. 22, 1989; 85Do1308, Sept. 10, 1985). However, even if there are several successors of the actual transferor and transferee, the above letter of guarantee and the letter of confirmation are issued by one of the co-inheritors of the actual co-inheritors, and when one of the co-inheritors, who actually acquired the entire real estate by entering it as the transferee's transferee's transfer, it constitutes a special measure under Article 13 (1) 4.

The judgment of the court below to the above purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

The precedents cited by theory can not serve as a proper precedent in this case, unlike cases. There is no reason for discussing.

3. Although the registration of transfer of ownership is defective in the process or different from the actual one, if the registration is to conform to the substantive legal relationship or is valid registration that conforms to the substantive legal relationship, the crime of false entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed and the crime of uttering thereof shall not be established (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Do2468, Apr. 26, 1996; 90Do427, Sept. 28, 1990). However, this is limited to where the registration is valid in accordance with the substantive legal relationship as of the time of registration of transfer of ownership, and where the registration is not consistent with the substantive legal relationship at the time of registration, it shall not affect the establishment of the crime of false entry in the authentic deed and the crime of uttering thereof, even if it conforms to the substantive legal relationship after the consent or ratification by interested parties.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the main text of the lawsuit.

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

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)