Where a registration of ownership preservation has been made with a judgment on confirmation of ownership against a non-authorized person with respect to real estate, the nature of fraud (negative)

In a lawsuit fraud, the judgment of the court, which is the defrauded, should have the content and effect in lieu of the victim's dispositive act, and if not, there is no act of delivering property by mistake. Thus, even if the defendant has obtained a favorable judgment by deceiving the court by filing a lawsuit claiming ownership confirmation, etc. against a person who has no authority over another person's real estate, and has obtained a registration of preservation of ownership of the said real estate by using the final judgment in favor of the court, the above judgment shall be effective only between the parties to the lawsuit, and the third party's ownership of the said real estate shall not be transferred to the defendant due to the above judgment as it does not affect the third

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 84No839 delivered on August 14, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

Fraud is to be established in the event of deception by deceiving a person to take property or gain pecuniary advantage through a dispositive act. Even if there was no dispositive act due to deception, fraud is not established in the event of fraud, and even in the so-called litigation fraud, the judgment of the court which is the defrauded should have the content and effect in lieu of the victim's dispositive act, and if not, there is no act of giving property by mistake. In this case, as the judgment of the court below became lawful in this case, the court below did not have any possession or use of the above land with the government branch of the Seoul District Court as to the land listed in the attached Table 1, 2, and 3 at the time of original adjudication, which is not the defendant's ownership, and there is no right to claim ownership confirmation against the above land, and it cannot be accepted by deceiving the court to the effect that the above land is owned by the defendant, and even if the judgment became final and conclusive, it cannot be seen that the above judgment did not affect the above judgment of the court below to the effect that the above land belongs to the owner of the above land.

With respect to the second ground:

In light of the records, the court below's decision is just and acceptable as the defendant inherited the land No. 247, Jincheon-gun, the king-si, the king-ri 247, which the defendant called the owner, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for the conclusion of the opinion.

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

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)