beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.07.12 2017노3905

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is liable for and acceptance of the consent of the owner of the building on the transfer of the right of lease.

There was no talking that “.......”

B. The victim received a written statement from the defendant stating that he/she would demand cancellation of the right of lease between the defendant and the victim (hereinafter “transfer of the right of lease of this case”) with the knowledge that he/she did not consent to the transfer of the right of lease between the defendant and the victim of the building (hereinafter “the owner of the building”). In light of the above circumstances, the victim cannot be deemed to have paid the balance due to a mistake that the owner of the building would obtain consent to the transfer of the right of lease of this case from the owner of the building, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the victim paid

subsection (b) of this section.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances in the judgment of the court below, the court below did not err by the mistake that the victim could be recognized as the transferee of the right of lease or the sub-lessee by the Defendant's deception and paid the lease deposit and the premium, and even after the conclusion of the contract, there was an error that the victim may still obtain approval or consent of the owner of the building (at the time of payment of the remaining amount, the victim was in the state of receipt of a letter stating that he will be responsible for the previous borrower at the time of payment, but it is insufficient for the defendant's above person to be the sole cause for the remainder payment

Because there was a expectation that the victim would be able to obtain the approval or consent of the building owner, the fault of the victim would have become more and more.

Even if it is reasonable to deem that the balance is paid in such a mistake, and such expectation is due to the Defendant’s deception, so there is no problem in recognizing the causal relationship between the victim’s disposal act and mistake.