Whether a seller prior to permission for land transaction constitutes a person who administers another’s business, who is the subject of breach of trust (negative)

Since there was no land transaction permission under Article 21-3 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory with respect to the sale and purchase of land within a land transaction contract designated by Article 21-2 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, since such a sale contract has no in personam effect, it cannot be deemed that the seller has a duty to cooperate with the buyer in the registration of transfer of ownership. Thus, the seller cannot be deemed a person who administers another's business, the subject of the crime of breach of trust, and even if there is a duty to cooperate

Article 35(2) of the Criminal Act, Articles 21-2 and 21-3(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

Supreme Court Decision 92Do1070 delivered on October 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 3187) Supreme Court Decision 94Do612 delivered on June 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1998) Supreme Court Decision 94Do697 delivered on January 20, 195 (Gong195Sang, 1186)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Jeong Young-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 95No1229 delivered on November 10, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the land transaction permission under Article 21-3 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory has not been obtained with respect to the sale and purchase of the land of this case within the permission area for the land transaction contract designated by Article 21-2 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, since such a sale contract has no obligatory effect, it cannot be deemed that the defendant has a duty to cooperate with the victim in the registration of the transfer of ownership. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the defendant cannot be deemed a person who administers another's business, who is the subject of the crime of breach of trust, is just in accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court Decision 92Do1070 delivered on October 13, 192, and it is not yet deemed a person's business (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do697 delivered on January 20, 195). Thus, the ground for appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)