Whether Article 13(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership constitutes a violation of Article 13(1) of the aforesaid Act even if it conforms to the substantive relationship where registration is completed with false certificates

Although the registration of ownership transfer in the registry is valid because it complies with the substantive relationship, if it is required to prepare a false certification or exercises the document with a false certification, it constitutes a crime against the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate

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

Supreme Court Decision 84Do1750 Decided March 12, 1985 82Do3137 Decided August 23, 1983

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 86No2393 delivered on November 11, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Although the registration of transfer of ownership in the registry is valid because it complies with a substantive relationship, if it is required to prepare a false certificate or exercises the document with a false certificate issued, it shall constitute a crime of violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership Transfer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do1750, Mar. 12, 1985; 82Do3137, Aug. 23, 1983).

According to evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it is not difficult to acknowledge that the defendant inherited the real estate of this case registered in the future from the preference, and that it constitutes a crime of violating the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership, etc., since it is difficult for the court below to acknowledge the fact that the defendant had another person who purchased the real estate from him without taking procedures for the cancellation of trust from the preference, and had another person who purchased it prepare a false guarantee, exercise the document, and obtain a false confirmation from the head of the competent Gun without taking such procedures, and therefore

In addition, even if the registration conforms to the substantive relationship, it cannot be said that the above law violates the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing private property rights to punish the act of issuing a written confirmation or guarantee by false means.

All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)