logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1987. 2. 10. 선고 86도2323 판결
[부동산소유권이전등기에관한특별조치법위반][공1987.4.1.(797),480]
Main Issues

Whether the act of obtaining a written confirmation with different grounds for acquisition constitutes the case of obtaining a false written confirmation under Article 13 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate

Summary of Judgment

The so-called "a letter of confirmation has been issued pursuant to the procedures of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate purchased from the decedent and the purchaser of the land from the inheritor has received a letter of confirmation from the decedent in accordance with the procedures of the above law, even if the indication on the registry is in conformity with the substantive relations, the case where a false letter of confirmation has been issued under Article 13 (1) 1 of the above Act.

[Reference Provisions]

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

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 82Do3137 Decided August 23, 1983

Escopics

Defendant 1 and one other

upper and high-ranking persons

Defendants

Judgment of the lower court

Gwangju High Court Decision 86No456 delivered on October 10, 1986

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal No. 1

According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance which the court below maintained, it can sufficiently recognize the defendant's criminal facts as stated in the judgment, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to an illegal act or criminal intent due to a failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal Nos. 2 and Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the court below confirmed that the land in this case at issue was originally owned by the non-indicted deceased, who was originally owned by the non-indicted deceased, and was inherited by the same defendant due to his death, but in order to transfer the above land's registration name in the same defendant's name, the court below issued a confirmation in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate Ownership, etc., purchased from the non-indicted deceased. The land in this case at issue is also owned by the non-indicted deceased, and the land in this case was inherited by the defendant 1 after his death on October 17, 1968, and purchased the above land from the non-indicted deceased after his death on January 17, 1984 to transfer the above land's name in the same defendant's name, and it did not affect the judgment of the court of first instance that held that the above defendants' above second son's act constitutes a case where a false confirmation under Article 13 (1) 2).3).

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

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)

arrow