Whether the title truster has the authority to prepare documents in the name of the trustee for disposal of trust real estate.

In a case where a title trust is made to a trustee with any burden imposed on the truster, it is reasonable to view that the truster comprehensively permitted the trustee to dispose of the property or use the name of the trustee in the event of the disposal of the property or exercise of other authority, barring any special circumstances. Therefore, the truster is not a crime of forging or uttering private documents on the ground that the truster prepared a sales contract in the name of the trustee, a registration delegation letter, etc

Articles 231 and 234 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Do799 Decided March 25, 1980

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Young-hoon

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 82No4695 delivered on January 13, 1983

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Appeal:

① In light of the records, the court below held that the defendant was not responsible for implementing the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the above Jeon Ho-dong-dong-dong 74-3, 93, 76-1, 76-1, 77-1, 77-1, 344, on the ground that the defendant independently purchased and sold to the non-indicted Jong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong 2,813, 2,813 and 344

② In light of the records, the court below's finding that the defendant prepared a sales contract with the above person with the above person with the above person with the intention to show it to the above person with the registration title, and there is no evidence to prove that there was any intention to show it to the above person with the above person with the registration title, and that there is no error of law of evidence or lack of reason, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the execution of the contract, it cannot be said that there is no error of law of evidence or lack of reason.

③ As seen above, the land in question is the real property owned by the defendant under title trust on the register, and the defendant sold it to the non-indicted Y profit and forced the defendant to register the ownership transfer to the YY profit directly from the above YY. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged for the execution of the notarial deed on the charge of the notarial deed in question is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. As to the Defendant’s appeal:

As seen above, the judgment of the court below is reasonable to deem that in the case where the title trust of the property was made to the trustee without any burden on the truster, the disposal of the property and the use of the name of the trustee was comprehensively permitted to the truster (see Supreme Court Decision 79Do799, Mar. 25, 1980) as a copy of the confirmation document (No. 206 of the Investigation Record) by the witness testimony at the court of first instance, the defendant prepared and delivered a copy of the confirmation document (see Supreme Court Decision 206, Mar. 25, 1980). According to its contents, the land purchased by the defendant and registered in the name of the non-indicted regular trust in the registration of the transfer of ownership is recognized as having no substantial authority over the land purchased by the defendant, and all authorities are recognized as having the defendant (Delegation)

Thus, the defendant can prepare a document in the name of the person who is the trustee in relation to the disposal of the above trust property. However, the judgment of the court below is justified since the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disposal of the property held in title trust, which held that the defendant forged a sales contract, a written notice of performance of cancellation, a certificate of seal imprint, and a certificate of seal imprint and a certificate of registration delegation in the name of the person who is the trustee in charge of the above trust property and exercised the above investigation document, and it is obvious that the violation of law has an effect on the

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)