The validity of an act of purchasing State property under the name of a third party by a public official in charge of government affairs;

Article 7 of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 2950 of Dec. 31, 1976) shall be construed as prohibiting the acquisition of State property by a public official in charge of materials in principle in order to protect the interests of the State concerning State property and to ensure fairness in the affairs of disposing of State property. In addition, Article 7 (2) of the same Act shall be construed as denying not only the "acquisition of State property by a public official in charge of materials in charge of materials" but also the "legal effect" of such act. Thus, Article 7 (1) of the same Act shall not be merely a simple regulation, but also be a mandatory provision and its validity. Furthermore, if a public official in charge of materials in charge purchases State property under a third party's name to avoid the restriction under the same Article, the same Article does not allow not only the "acquisition of State property by a public official in charge of materials in charge of materials" but also the "legal effect" shall also be null and void as it is an evasion of law.

Article 7 of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 2950 of Dec. 31, 1976)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Jin-man and 5 others

3 others than the Republic of Korea

Gwangju District Court Decision 89Da5933 delivered on February 8, 1991

1. The judgment of the court below is revoked.

2. For Defendant Republic of Korea:

A. As to the real estate listed in the attached Table 1, the defendant Kang Jin-hee shall be registered with the District Court of Gwangju, the District Court of Jeju, the District Court of 23 August 1

registration for transfer of ownership made under section 13088;

B. On July 28, 1989, No. 11810 received on July 28, 1989

registration of transfer of ownership made;

C. Defendant 4 shall implement each procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was made under No. 16178 on September 23, 198 by the same registry office with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

3. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant Republic of Korea will implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on July 16, 1937 with respect to shares of 52/160, shares of 9/160, shares of 9/160, shares of 36/160, shares of 36/160, shares of 18/160, shares of 18/160, shares of 52/160, shares of 52/160, shares of 5

4. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants in both the first and second instances.

The decision is as follows (the plaintiff withdrawn the preliminary claim at the trial).

1. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. Recognition of the cause of action

In full view of Gap evidence 1-1 to 7, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4-5, Gap evidence 6-1 to 5, Gap evidence 7-1 through 4, Gap evidence 10, and 13, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1 to 5, Gap evidence 7-1 to 4, and the whole purport of the arguments, the following facts may be acknowledged and there is no counter-proof.

① On March 5, 1918, 1918, the land was subdivided into three 129 forest land in the king-gun, Yannam-gun, Yannam-gun (hereinafter referred to as “the land before the instant subdivision”). On May 31, 1943, the land was further subdivided into five Yansan-gun, Yansan-gun, Yansan-gun, Yan-gun, and one 6 Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun-gun, Yan-gun, hereinafter referred to as “the land before the instant subdivision”).

② The land before the division of this case was registered as the transfer of ownership after purchasing it from the State on July 16, 1937, on the old forestry register [the land before the division of this case was prepared pursuant to the old Rules of the Forestry Register (Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 113 of August 23, 1920)].

③ On February 2, 1976, Jin-jin died on the part of the deceased on February 2, 1976, the deceased Nonparty 2/20 shares in the order of his wife, the number of Plaintiff Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-J, the number of Plaintiff 6/20 shares, 6/20 shares, 1/20 shares, 4/16/20/16/16/16 of shares, 20/16/16/16/16/16 of shares, respectively).

According to the above facts, it is presumed that the above deceased Jin-jin purchased the land before the partition from the State on July 16, 1937 (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da28638, Oct. 26, 1993). The defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to transfer the ownership of each of the above real estate to the country of Jin-jin by succeeding to the status of the plaintiffs who succeeded to the status by succeeding the right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership based on the above sale to the country of Jin-jin as to each of the above real estate in this case 52/160 shares (=6/20 + 4/160), the plaintiff Jin-jin, and Jin-Jin-Jin-J in accordance with their respective statutory shares (=1/200 +1/160), 36/160 shares (=4/204/160), and 18/2160/260 shares (=260/160).

(b) A dispute over the defendant 4, a day, or an action against the defendant 4;

Even if the above Defendants purchased the land from the State on July 16, 1937, it was registered as the Japanese owner on the registry at the time of August 9, 1945, it was reverted to the Defendant’s Republic of Korea as the property devolving upon the ownership, and thereafter, on July 8, 1974, Defendant 4 obtained the land from the head of Sinpo District Tax Office and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 23, 198. Accordingly, the above Defendants asserted that the above Defendants’ obligation to transfer ownership to the Plaintiffs of the Republic of Korea was impossible because they were registered as the ownership in Japan on the registry at the time of August 9, 194.

However, according to the above evidence Nos. 1 and 3 to 6, it was impossible to register the ownership transfer of the above land under the name of the above 1923 (12 years for non-party 12) on the non-party 2's 3-year ownership transfer registration on the non-party 1's own land prior to the above 3-year ownership transfer registration on the non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's ownership registration.

2. Determination as to claims against the remaining Defendants

(a) Basic facts;

The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 2-1, 3-1 through 6, and 19 of the evidence Nos. 2-1, 3-1 through 6, and 19.

① On March 5, 1918, the State was assessed against the land before the instant subdivision.

② As to each of the instant real estate in the name of Defendant D, due to sale and purchase from Defendant Republic of Korea on July 8, 1974, the ownership transfer registration as indicated in the separate sheet is made in the name of Defendant D, and as to the first real estate listed in the separate sheet on March 30, 1984, on the ground of sale and purchase on August 23, 1989.

③ However, at the time of July 8, 1974, Nonparty 4 borrowed the real estate of this case under the name of the Defendant 4, who was in exclusive charge of the duties of giving up state property in the jurisdiction while working as the secretary of the tax office for the tax office, and was not in the name of the non-party 4.

④ Meanwhile, Article 7(1) of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 2950, Dec. 31, 1976; hereinafter the same) provides that “An employee engaged in the affairs concerning State property shall not acquire, or exchange with his/her own property: Provided, That this shall not apply in cases where he/she obtains the permission of the competent minister,” and Article 7(2) provides that “an act in violation of the provisions of the preceding paragraph shall be null and void.”

(b) Markets:

Article 7 of the former State Property Act (hereinafter referred to as a "public official in charge of government affairs") deals with information on state property and allow access to it easily, and it is possible for them to exercise influence over the decision of sale price, etc., so if it is permitted to acquire state property, there is a risk of infringing the economic interest of the State due to conflict of interests of the State and the public official in charge of government affairs, and there is room to intervene in the illegal act of the public official in charge of government affairs. Thus, in the legislative intent of protecting the interests of the State concerning state property and ensuring fairness in the affairs of disposing state property, the former State Property Act shall be deemed to prohibit the public official in charge of government affairs in principle in order to protect the interests of the State and ensure fairness in the affairs of disposing state property. In addition, Article 7 (2) of the former State Property Act shall be construed as denying the "legal effect" as well as the "legal effect" of the act. Thus, Article 7 (1) of the same Act shall not

Furthermore, if a public official in charge of government affairs purchases state property under the name of a third party to avoid restrictions on the above Article, the above Article does not allow not only the "act" acquiring state property to be disposed of by the public official in charge of government affairs, but also the "legal effect", and such act is null and void as it is an evasion of law.

Therefore, the non-party, who is a public official in charge of government affairs, borrowed the name of defendant 4 on July 4, 1974 and entered into a contract between the defendant's Republic of Korea and the defendant's Republic of Korea with respect to each of the real estate of this case shall be deemed to be a registration of invalidation, which has been made as a result of abrupt invalidation in violation of the above provision of the law, and the registration of transfer of ownership under the defendant 4 was made without any legitimate reason. The registration of transfer of ownership of the defendant Lee Il-il and Kang Byung-hee, which was made in succession, shall be deemed to be null and void. Thus, the defendant's Republic of Korea, the defendant 4, Lee Jong-il, and Kang Byung-hee

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant Kang Jong-hee shall order the cancellation of ownership transfer registration made under No. 13088 on August 23, 1989 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 1; the defendant Lee Jong-hee's transfer registration made under No. 11810 on July 28, 1989 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 1989; the defendant Lee Byung-hee shall execute the transfer registration and cancellation registration made under No. 16178 on September 23, 1988 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 1; and the defendant Republic of Korea shall order the cancellation of ownership transfer registration to the plaintiff Jin-jin and Jin-jin to the plaintiffs 52/160 shares; the defendant's claim against the defendants for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration and the remaining shares in the above separate sheet No. 960 on July 16, 199997.

Judge Lee Yong-hee (Presiding Judge)