[1] In a case where a real estate owner is missing, whether a real estate registered as a state property belongs to the State without the verification of his/her death or the absence of his/her heir, or the reversion of state property pursuant to Article 1053 through 1058 of the Civil Code, under Article 8 of the State Property Act (negative)

[2] In a case where: (a) the registration of preservation of ownership in the state’s name was made on the land under the circumstances of the Japanese colonial period due to the failure to recover the owner; (b) the Defendant conspired with Co-Defendant 1 in collusion with Co-Defendant 2 to manipulate the time of the death of the heir as if he inherited the ownership of Party B; and (c) subsequently, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the State for registration of cancellation of registration of cancellation and partly admitted the same, the case affirming the judgment below which acknowledged the Defendant’s crime of fraud and attempted fraud as to the part for

[1] Land which is under circumstances in a specific person’s name shall be presumed to be owned by the person under circumstances or by his/her heir, and even if it is impossible to ascertain whether the land owner is alive or dead due to his/her absence of inheritor, the land shall not be immediately owned by the State unless the procedures for reversion to the State under Articles 1053 through 1058 of the Civil Act are followed, unless the land is proved to be dead and there is no inheritor, or the land shall not be owned by the State. In addition, unless it is a state-owned real estate, the land shall not be owned by the State by taking the procedures for disposal of unregistered real estate under Article 8

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which acknowledged the part of the claimant's attempted settlement recommendation as to the above part of fraud, and the part of the claimant's attempted settlement recommendation as to the above part of fraud, in a case where Gap filed a claim for cancellation of registration of cancellation of registration of cancellation against Eul in collusion with co-defendant 1 in collusion with the court of first instance to manipulate the time of death of the heir as if Eul inherited the ownership of Eul, and Eul as to the above part of the land, which was under the circumstances of the Japanese colonial era, and the registration of cancellation of registration of cancellation was made under the state's name. However, unless the state reversion procedure under Article 1053 of the Civil Act was made or there are other special circumstances that the State acquired ownership, unless the above part of the claim becomes final and conclusive under the state's name, and a settlement recommendation decision equivalent to the judgment for partial use of the claim becomes final and conclusive, it shall be deemed that the court of first instance acquired property benefits by deceiving and obtained property benefits which are the object of fraud, and it constitutes attempted settlement recommendation as to each part of fraud.

[1] Articles 252(2), 1053, and 1058 of the Civil Act; Article 8 of the State Property Act / [2] Articles 30, 347(1), and 352 of the Criminal Act; Articles 252(2), 1053, and 1058 of the Civil Act; Article 8 of the State Property Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da59132 delivered on February 23, 1999 (Gong1999Sang, 551) Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Do9858 delivered on April 7, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 2106)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Yoon Jin-jin et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2011No639 decided June 24, 2011

The appeal is dismissed.

Land circumstances in a specific person’s name shall be presumed to be owned by the person in charge of assessment or his/her heir, and even if it is impossible to ascertain whether the owner of the land is alive or dead because he/she is missing, the land shall not be immediately owned by the State unless the procedures for reversion to the State pursuant to Articles 1053 through 1058 of the Civil Act are followed with respect to the land, unless there are special circumstances, unless it is proved that the owner of the land dies and there is no heir, or that there is no heir. Furthermore, the land shall not be immediately owned by the State, unless the procedures for disposal of unregistered real estate pursuant to Article 8 of the State Property Act were followed, and shall not be owned by the State (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da59132, Feb

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the record, on December 31, 1959, the registration of preservation of ownership of the real estate of this case was made in the name of the State due to the failure to recover from the owner on December 31, 1959. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the real estate of this case was land under the circumstances of Non-Indicted 1 in the original Japanese colonial era, and Non-Indicted 2's wife Non-Indicted 3 died on August 15, 1953, and Non-Indicted 2's wife Non-Indicted 3 died during the Korean War, and Non-Indicted 4 was missing in the Korean War while Non-Indicted 6/25, and Non-Indicted 2's children were missing in the Korean War, in collusion with Non-Indicted 2 of the first instance court and Non-Indicted 3 died after Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 4 died, and it was confirmed that the registration of preservation of ownership was corrected under the name of Non-Indicted 5, who was his relative.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the real estate of this case is not naturally owned by the State unless the procedure for reversion to the State pursuant to the procedure under Article 1053 of the Civil Act or any other special circumstances in which the State acquired the ownership of the real estate of this case. However, inasmuch as Nonindicted 5, who had already been registered as a preservation of ownership in the name of the State, fabricated the time of death, etc. of Nonindicted 3, filed a claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the State, and a settlement recommendation decision corresponding to the judgment on the part of the claim becomes final and conclusive, it shall be deemed that the above part of the claim is thereby acquiring the pecuniary benefit, namely, “the position to obtain the ownership of the land subject to ownership” by deceiving the court in favor of the court for the above part of the claim. This shall be deemed to constitute the acquisition of pecuniary benefit (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Do9858, Apr. 7, 2006).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is justifiable for the court below to have found the Defendant guilty of fraud as to the part of the facts charged in this case against the Defendant, and of attempted fraud as to the part of the part of the waiver of the claim for cancellation of the registration by the decision of recommending reconciliation. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the ownership of unregistered real estate, the inheritance law on the ownership of the person under the circumstance, the commencement of the commission of the litigation fraud, or by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

The Defendant appealed against the remainder of the convictions, such as false entry in the original public electronic records, among the judgment below, and there is no indication in the petition of appeal as to that part of the appeal nor any statement in the grounds of appeal as to the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)