부동산의 이중매매에 관한 형사책임

Abstract

Majority opinion of the Supreme Court denies the existence of a breach of trust regarding the issue of double dealing in real estate and further questions the identity of such breach, claiming that the duty to register the transfer of ownership derived from the appointment of payment in substitutes represents an individual's own responsibility. if this were the case, however, would it not conflict with the decisions in preceding cases which had concluded that down payment and middle payment (in regards to real estate transactions) remain the responsibility of both the seller and the buyer? According to precedents and the majority opinion, contracts may not be canceled once the middle payment has been transferred, and if nevertheless double dealing does occur, it would represent an act of foregoing the responsibility to cooperate in the process of transferring the registration of ownership, which would then be considered a breach of trust. However, questions and ambiguities remain regarding the following: 1) whether the seller can assume the legal role of maintaining or managing the other party's property solely on the grounds that the middle payment had been transferred, 2) whether applying criminal measures in a civil transaction oversteps the limits of criminal law, and 3) whether subjecting only double dealing to criminal prosecution--while recognizing the need to address this particular issue in order to ensure the integrity of the real estate market--violates the concept of fairness. Given that real estate transactions can be seen as transactions of other types of goods and that the transfer of registration of ownership unique to real estate merely represents an intermediary steps towards the complete realization and transfer of ownership, the scope of sellers' responsibility does not provide necessary grounds for a breach of trust. one party performs an act or task on behalf of another. Regardless of whether the purpose of transaction involves real estate or movable goods, the duties outlined in the contract represent the duties of the self; simply put, tasks performed for another entity cannot be considered the same as another entity's tasks. As such, double dealing cannot be addressed under criminal law (under breach of trust) but rather represents the seller's violation of contracts under civil transaction law.