Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Establishment and time of completion of litigation fraud based on a false claim of ownership in an action to cancel a preservation registration, recidivism period and commencement of execution
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Apr. 7, 2006, 2005Do9858 (en banc judgment)
Case name: 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)·공문서위조·위조공문서행사·허위감정·배임수재
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
If a person falsely asserts that he or she is the owner of land, files an action to cancel the preservation registration against the registered holder of the ownership preservation registration, and obtains a final and conclusive judgment in his or her favor, is litigation fraud established, and when is the offense completed?
Holding
By that judgment, the person becomes able, alone, to cancel the opposing party's preservation registration and to complete a preservation registration in his or her own name; accordingly, the person is deemed to have acquired the pecuniary benefit consisting in the status of being in a position to remove the interference with ownership and to obtain the registered title of ownership, and litigation fraud is established, the time of completion being the time when the judgment becomes final and conclusive. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, changed the earlier precedent that held otherwise.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그 소송에서 위 토지가 피고인 또는 그와 공모한 자의 소유임을 인정하여 보존등기 말소를 명하는 내용의 승소확정판결을 받는다면, 이에 터 잡아 언제든지 단독으로 상대방의 소유권보존등기를 말소시킨 후 위 판결을 부동산등기법 제130조 제2호 소정의 소유권을 증명하는 판결로 하여 자기 앞으로의 소유권보존등기를 신청하여 그 등기를 마칠 수 있게 되므로
Unofficial English translation
If, in that lawsuit, he obtains a winning final and conclusive judgment recognizing that the land in question is owned by the defendant or a person who conspired with him and ordering the cancellation of the preservation registration, then relying on this, he may at any time alone cancel the counterparty's ownership preservation registration, and thereafter apply for an ownership preservation registration in his own name by using the said judgment as a judgment proving ownership as provided in Article 130 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, thereby making it possible to complete that registration, since
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그 경우 기수시기는 위 판결이 확정된 때이다.
Unofficial English translation
In that case, the time of consummation is when the said judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Factors
- 자신이 토지의 소유자라고 허위의 주장을 하면서 소유권보존등기 명의자를 상대로 보존등기의 말소를 구하는 소송을 제기한 경우
- 대상 토지의 소유권에 대한 방해를 제거하고 그 소유명의를 얻을 수 있는 지위
- 3년의 기간 내에 실행의 착수가 있으면 족하고, 그 기간 내에 기수에까지 이르러야 되는 것은 아니다
- 소개의 대가로 금품을 받을 고의를 가지고 변호사에게 소개를 하면 실행행위의 착수가 있다
- 범죄구성요건 사실에 관한 것이 아니어서 엄격한 증명은 필요 없지만 역시 증거에 의하여 인정되어야 한다
Unofficial English translation
• Where one, while falsely asserting that he is the owner of the land, files a lawsuit against the holder of the ownership preservation registration seeking cancellation of the preservation registration
• a position in which interference with the ownership of the land in question can be removed and the ownership title can be obtained
• it is sufficient that the commencement of execution occurs within the three-year period, and it is not necessary that the offense be consummated within that period
• if one refers [a client] to an attorney with intent to receive money or valuables as a reward for the referral, there is a commencement of the act of execution
• as it does not concern facts relating to the constituent elements of the crime, strict proof is not required, but it must likewise be established by evidence
Relation to precedent
Changes earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1983. 10. 25. 선고 83도1566 판결(공1983, 1784)(변경)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 83Do1566 decided October 25, 1983 (Gong 1983, 1784) (changed)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1983. 10. 25. 선고 83도1566 판결(공1983, 1784)(변경) / [4] 대법원 1973. 4. 17. 선고 73도279 판결(공1973, 7318), 대법원 1982. 2. 9. 선고 81도3040 판결(공1982, 319), 대법원 1987. 4. 11. 선고 87도399 판결(공1987, 849), 대법원 1993. 6. 22. 선고 91도3346 판결(공1993상, 2183)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How is the value of the pecuniary benefit consisting in the status of being in a position to obtain the registered title of ownership, acquired through a final and conclusive judgment in favor in an action to cancel a preservation registration, calculated in applying the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes?
This reading will be checked again if an en banc judgment on the pecuniary benefit or the time of completion of litigation fraud is again handed down, or if the requirements for applying for a preservation registration under the Registration of Real Estate Act change.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
In comparison with an independent reading by another AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, while the readings diverged on the eighth axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How is the value of the pecuniary benefit consisting in the status of being in a position to obtain the registered title of ownership, acquired through a final and conclusive judgment in favor in an action to cancel a preservation registration, calculated in applying the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes?” vs Independent “Even if a final and conclusive judgment in favor in an action to cancel a preservation registration is obtained, can the acquisition of the same pecuniary benefit be recognized also in cases where the person cannot apply for an ownership preservation registration in his or her own name by virtue of that judgment?”
The first reading asks about the calculation of the value of the pecuniary benefit acquired, while the independent reading asks whether the benefit is acquired even where registration in the person's own name is impossible.
그 소송에서 위 토지가 피고인 또는 그와 공모한 자의 소유임을 인정하여 보존등기 말소를 명하는 내용의 승소확정판결을 받는다면, 이에 터 잡아 언제든지 단독으로 상대방의 소유권보존등기를 말소시킨 후 위 판결을 부동산등기법 제130조 제2호 소정의 소유권을 증명하는 판결로 하여 자기 앞으로의 소유권보존등기를 신청하여 그 등기를 마칠 수 있게 되므로Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below (Seoul High Court, 2005No1909, 2105) found Defendant 3 guilty of completed litigation fraud, holding that it constituted the offense of fraud in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and, finding that the commencement of execution occurred within the recidivism period, imposed aggravated punishment as a recidivist. It also imposed aggravated punishment as a recidivist for the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, though it recognized a different time of commencement of execution from the Supreme Court, and, holding that the 13 million won received by Defendant 6 as a receipt of a bribe for breach of trust could not be confiscated, ordered additional collection instead.
Supreme Court standard: The majority opinion, holding that a pecuniary benefit is acquired through a final and conclusive judgment in favor in an action to cancel a preservation registration and that the offense is completed when the judgment becomes final and conclusive, upheld the finding of the court below as to the completion of the fraud and changed Decision 83Do1566 and others. As to the time of commencement of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, it held that it was early July 2002, when the defendant made the introduction with the intent to receive money or valuables in return for the introduction, and thus that the finding of the court below as to the time of commencement was erroneous, although its conclusion imposing aggravated punishment as a recidivist was just. Justice Kim Hwang-sik submitted a dissenting opinion, stating that the matter amounted only to attempted fraud.
Distinguishing conditions
- Cases where the judgment of cancellation does not recognize the plaintiff's ownership and therefore cannot be used as a judgment proving ownership under the Registration of Real Estate Act
- Cases where an action was filed but no judgment in favor became final and conclusive, so that the offense was not completed
- Cases involving other types of litigation fraud, such as a judgment ordering payment of money or ordering transfer of registration, where a pecuniary benefit is obtained by the effect of the final and conclusive judgment itself
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, it should be checked whether, after the final and conclusive judgment, the person failed to reach an actual preservation registration or abandoned the offense of his or her own accord, and whether there are circumstances under which it would be difficult to recognize a pecuniary benefit on the basis of the scope of the effect of the judgment itself, as stated in the dissenting opinion.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 허위의 주장을 하면서 소유권보존등기 명의자를 상대로 보존등기의 말소를 구하는 소송을 제기하여 승소확정판결을 받은 경우, 소송사기의 성립 여부(적극) 및 그 기수시기(=승소판결이 확정된 때) [2] 누범가중의 요건으로서 다시 금고 이상에 해당하는 죄를 범하였는지 여부의 판단 기준 [3] 변호사법 제109조 제2호, 제34조 제1항 위반죄의 실행의 착수시기 [4] 몰수·추징의 사유가 엄격한 증명을 요하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether litigation fraud is established where one, while falsely asserting, files a lawsuit against the holder of the ownership preservation registration seeking cancellation of the preservation registration and obtains a final and conclusive judgment in his favor (affirmative), and the time of its consummation (= the time when the winning judgment becomes final and conclusive) [2] Criteria for determining whether one has again committed an offense punishable by imprisonment without labor or a heavier punishment, as a requirement for recidivist aggravation [3] Time of commencement of execution of the offense of violating Article 109 subparagraph 2 and Article 34 paragraph (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act [4] Whether the grounds for confiscation and collection of equivalent value require strict proof (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] [다수의견] 피고인 또는 그와 공모한 자가 자신이 토지의 소유자라고 허위의 주장을 하면서 소유권보존등기 명의자를 상대로 보존등기의 말소를 구하는 소송을 제기한 경우 그 소송에서 위 토지가 피고인 또는 그와 공모한 자의 소유임을 인정하여 보존등기 말소를 명하는 내용의 승소확정판결을 받는다면, 이에 터 잡아 언제든지 단독으로 상대방의 소유권보존등기를 말소시킨 후 위 판결을 부동산등기법 제130조 제2호 소정의 소유권을 증명하는 판결로 하여 자기 앞으로의 소유권보존등기를 신청하여 그 등기를 마칠 수 있게 되므로, 이는 법원을 기망하여 유리한 판결을 얻음으로써 ‘대상 토지의 소유권에 대한 방해를 제거하고 그 소유명의를 얻을 수 있는 지위’라는 재산상 이익을 취득한 것이고, 그 경우 기수시기는 위 판결이 확정된 때이다. [대법관 김황식의 반대의견] 소유권보존등기의 말소를 명하는 확정판결은 그 자체의 효력에 의해서는 등기명의인의 보존등기가 말소될 뿐이고 이로써 피고인 또는 그 공모자가 부동산에 대하여 어떠한 권리를 취득하거나 의무를 면하는 것이 아니어서 그 자체만으로는 법원을 기망하여 재물이나 재산상 이익을 편취한 것이라고 볼 수 없다. 다만, 부동산을 편취하기 위해 허위소송을 제기하여 소유권보존등기의 말소를 명하는 확정판결을 얻어낸 경우 그 확정판결이 선고되는 과정에 피고인의 기망행위가 존재하는 이상, 실행의 착수시점은 소송을 제기한 시점이라고 보아야 하므로 소유권보존등기말소 소송을 제기한 경우에는 피고인의 범의가 재물인 부동산의 취득에 있는지 여부와 무관하게, 실행의 착수조차 없다고 본 판결(대법원 1983. 10. 25. 선고 83도1566 판결) 등의 견해는 이와 저촉되는 범위 내에서 이를 변경하여야 한다. [2] 형법 제35조 소정의 누범이 되려면 금고 이상의 형을 받아 그 집행을 종료하거나 면제를 받은 후 3년 내에 다시 금고 이상에 해당하는 죄를 범하여야 하는바, 이 경우 다시 금고 이상에 해당하는 죄를 범하였는지 여부는 그 범죄의 실행행위를 하였는지 여부를 기준으로 결정하여야 하므로 3년의 기간 내에 실행의 착수가 있으면 족하고, 그 기간 내에 기수에까지 이르러야 되는 것은 아니다. [3] 법률사무의 수임에 관하여 당사자를 특정 변호사에게 소개한 후 그 대가로 금품을 수수하면 변호사법 제109조 제2호, 제34조 제1항을 위반하는 죄가 성립하는바, 그 경우 소개의 대가로 금품을 받을 고의를 가지고 변호사에게 소개를 하면 실행행위의 착수가 있다. [4] 몰수대상이 되는지 여부나 추징액의 인정 등 몰수·추징의 사유는 범죄구성요건 사실에 관한 것이 아니어서 엄격한 증명은 필요 없지만 역시 증거에 의하여 인정되어야 한다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고 후의 구금일수 중 108일씩을 피고인들의 각 본형에 산입한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. Of the days of confinement after the final appeal, 108 days each shall be credited against the respective principal sentences of the defendants.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제25조, 제347조, 제352조 [2] 형법 제35조 [3] 변호사법 제34조 제1항, 제109조 제2호 [4] 형법 제48조, 형사소송법 제307조
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger