본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.06.07 2018노2372

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.


1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that Defendant A 1 was registered as H’s child on the family relation certificate and misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A filed a lawsuit against Defendant A for ownership transfer registration on the Seongbuk-gu Seoul land (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed conciliation, Defendant A provided explanation to the effect that the inheritance registration and ownership transfer registration are possible from a certified judicial scrivener through an administrative appeal, and Defendant A paid approximately KRW 1.3 million to H with the purchase price, the above Defendant is impossible to register inheritance (referring to the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance; hereinafter the same shall apply) in the name of H on the instant land.

The court did not know that it could or could not be impossible.

B) The remainder of KRW 270,000,000,000, other than the down payment of KRW 4,440,000,000, which is the sum of KRW 1700,000,000 as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, was paid by the victimO as a rain fund, etc. for this purpose, and the actual Defendant A was also paid for this purpose. Therefore, the above KRW 270,000,00,000, not the above registration was concealed and received. Thus, the Defendant A cannot be said to have obtained it by fraud. 2) The lower court’s punishment (two years and four months in imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable

B. In light of the fact that he completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of inheritance with respect to the land such as Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jongno-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “AO-dong land”), which was owned by Defendant B 1, and sold it, and that the victim’s failure to obtain the ownership of the land of this case was due to the fact that the possessor acquired prescription, the victim was unable to obtain the ownership registration under H’s name and the ownership transfer registration for the victim at the time of purchasing the land of this case from Defendant A.