Where the registration completed pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate conforms to the substantive relationship with the registration made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership with false certificates (affirmative)

Even if the registration itself is valid because the registration of ownership transfer completed in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Real Estate Ownership with a false certificate issued is consistent with the substantive relationship, there is no complaint against the so-called crime of violation of Article 13 (1) 1, 3 and 4 of the same Act by preparing a false certificate and obtaining a false certificate.

Article 13 (1) 1, 3, and 4 of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate

Supreme Court Decision 87Do974 delivered on July 21, 1987 (Gong1987, 1431) Supreme Court Decision 87Do1802 delivered on October 28, 1987 (Gong1987, 1835) Supreme Court Decision 88Do2003 Delivered on May 23, 1989 (Gong1989, 1034)

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Attorney Kim Sang-won

Busan High Court Decision 96No142 delivered on May 29, 1996

All appeals are dismissed.

The Defendants and Defendant 2’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined together.

Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 1 et al. do not directly purchase the instant site from No. 1, the original owner of the instant site, and even if their names were purchased by transfer from their registrants, Defendant 1 and the aforementioned Nonindicted 1 directly purchased the title of the instant site from the above No. 1 in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership in order to relocate the title of the instant site to Nonindicted 1 in the future, and if Defendant 2, 3, and 4 et al. directly purchased the instant site from the above No. 1, and Defendant 1 exercised a written confirmation by exercising it to the Gun office, they constitute the Defendants’ above so-called “Article 13(1)1, 3, and 4 of the aforementioned Special Measures”, and even if the registration itself is valid due to the conformity of the ownership transfer registration under the registry with the substantive relation, there is no complaint for the so-called use of the said false certification and obtaining a false confirmation to constitute the crime of violating the aforesaid Special Measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 847Do19787.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles. All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)