Whether double selling of real estate can be determined as a juristic act that has become invalid based on a false representation in civil cases even though double seller of real estate was punished as a crime of breach of trust (affirmative)

The existence of property damage in the crime of breach of trust under the Criminal Act is null and void by legal judgment, even if the act of breach of trust is null and void by the legal judgment, in the case where the act of breach of trust actually causes property damage to the principal or causes the risk of actual damage, it constitutes a crime of breach of trust as it constitutes a crime of breach of trust. Therefore, in civil cases where a seller was punished as a crime of breach of trust due to double selling in criminal cases, it cannot be determined

Article 108(1) of the Civil Act, Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Park Jong-yang et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and one other

Defendant 1 and 3 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and two others

Suwon District Court Decision 91Na6877 delivered on October 20, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that Defendant 1 purchased the land of this case from the non-party Kim Jong-ok to be in title trust, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 5, 1984 under the name of Lee Byung-young and Lee Jong-young. On October 12, 1987, the above title trust was terminated at the same time when the above title trust was entrusted the disposal of the land of this case and the above above ground buildings, and granted the power to execute the conclusion of the contract, the above letter was concluded with the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff 1 and received the down payment and the intermediate payment from the plaintiff. After that, the court below decided that the above letter was lawful by requesting the plaintiff to pay 3,00,000 won additional to the remaining price, while refusing to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the land of this case, the registration of ownership transfer was void by agreement with the defendant 2, his wife, and that the above land was sold to the defendant 1 for the purpose of termination of the ownership transfer registration for the above ground.

In a civil trial, the facts acknowledged in a final judgment of another criminal court related thereto are as important evidence, unless there are special circumstances. However, the relevant criminal judgment (No. 82,83,84) pointing out by the theory of lawsuit is convicted that Defendant 1 caused a double sale of the land in this case to Defendant 2. In the criminal law, the term "where property damage was inflicted on the property in this case" includes not only a case where a real damage was inflicted but also a case where a risk of actual damage to the property has been inflicted on the property. The determination of whether the property damage was inflicted on the property in this case must be based on the legal judgment in relation to the property status of the principal, not on the legal judgment in relation to the relation with the property status of the principal. Therefore, even if the act of breach of trust is null and void by a legal judgment, it constitutes a crime of breach of trust since it constitutes a crime of breach of trust due to a mutual agreement between Defendant 1 and a criminal case involving double sale of the land in this case.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding of the court below is justified and its determination is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, the reasoning, and the reasoning. There is no reason for the argument.

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants who have lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)