The meaning of Article 13(1)1 and 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer and false concept

The purport of Article 13 (1) 1 and 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate is to eliminate any danger of infringement on rights by making false matters entered on the register through simple methods in the process of complying with the rights in the register by using false documents, and considering the purport of Articles 1, 6, and 10 (1) of the same Act, the preparation of a letter of guarantee and the entry of the transferor or transferee in the application form for the issuance of a certificate shall be included not only in the transferor or transferee but also in the transferor or transferee, and the transferee shall also be included in the application form for the issuance of the certificate, as long as the sale date was caused by a juristic act between them before December 31, 1974, which is subject to the same Act, even if the certificate was issued and registered with the above application form specifying any date prior to that date, and as long as there is no possibility of any entry in the register likely to impair other persons' rights, it shall not be deemed that the certificate was issued or a false certificate is prepared by false means.

Articles 13(1)1 and 13(1)3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate

Supreme Court Decision 84Do1177 Delivered on July 24, 1984

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Seoul High Court Decision 83No2270 delivered on December 21, 1983

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.

The Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership") was enacted for the purpose of enabling a registration to be made by simple procedures of real estate (Article 1 of the same Act) which does not have a record of ownership registration at the time of enforcement of the same Act or does not coincide with the substantive legal relationship. The registration procedure also includes a specific person who has resided in Dong and Eup/Myeon for at least ten years and who has been commissioned by three or more heads of Eup/Myeon to apply for a registration under the above Act along with a letter of confirmation prepared by the competent authorities to certify the cause of registration (see Articles 7 and 10 of the same Act). The person who is entitled to apply for a registration is a registered titleholder or his heir, or a person who has actually taken over such real estate from such heir, and a person who has prepared a false letter of confirmation or a false letter of confirmation prepared by another person to be issued at the time of issuance of such certificate, and thus, the person who has an interest in the above registration shall be excluded from the issuance of a new certificate by the aforementioned method of punishment.

However, the court below found Defendant guilty on the following grounds: (a) purchased the instant land from Nonindicted Party 1, the heir of the deceased Kim Tae-tae (the title holder of the preservation registration of the instant real estate) on June 1946, and occupied by the above Defendant and the heir; (b) upon the enforcement of the aforementioned special provisions, the Defendant entered the date of sale in June 3, 1972 the purchaser in the form of the same Defendant (the seller Kim Jong-tae) and submitted a confirmation document necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership; (c) confirmed the fact that the purchaser was issued a confirmation document of the same contents from the above Defendant 3 of the above documents and the guarantee document stating the same; and (d) as long as the purchaser stated in the above, even if the substantive relationship of the registration of the said land is consistent with the date of sale, it constitutes a case where the purchaser was issued a false confirmation document and a false certification document is prepared.

However, Defendant 1’s above so-called act as an inheritor of Nonindicted Party 1 purchased from a legitimate right holder (see, e.g., the remaining three suspect interrogation records from the police), and the trading year cannot be deemed to be “a false method”, and it is clear that it is the year of the above Act or the applicable year and the date, and it is also the date of the above Act. In addition, it is acknowledged that the defendant's convenience was recorded on June 2, 1972 in a certain date before 1974 if the date of the purchase of the real estate in this case is well gathered, and there is no evidence to prove that there is a circumstance that the upper level of acquisition date in the above registration procedure has an impact on the other person’s legal relationship, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the above statement is issued by a false method or a false preparation. Accordingly, the court below found Defendant 1 guilty of this error, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 13(1)1 and 3 of the above Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)