강제집행면탈등
[Defendant A] The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.
However, the above sentence shall be executed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A borrowed a total of KRW 60 million from March 2006 to January 12, 2007 to the victim C, but did not repay it.
On April 9, 2013, the victim C filed a claim suit against the defendant A about KRW 60,000 of the above loan (laver support 2013da3947) and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive around November 26, 2013, and around December 12, 2013, the above judgment was made as executive title and applied for compulsory auction of the real estate D, which is the defendant A owned.
1. The Defendants’ co-principal co-principals conspired with the victim C to apply for a compulsory auction on the land owned by the Defendant, and the fact that the Defendant A applied for a compulsory auction on June 19, 2013 with respect to the loan obligation of KRW 26 million to Defendant B and to extinguish the remainder of the obligation, despite the agreement that the Defendant A would have agreed to repay the loan obligation of KRW 26 million with respect to the loan obligation of the Defendant B and to extinguish the remainder of the obligation, the Defendants subscribed for compulsory execution with the burden of false obligation.
On January 14, 2014, the Defendants prepared a notarial deed on the debt repayment contract with the effect that “Defendant A bears the principal amount of KRW 26 million, interest rate of KRW 30% per annum, maturity of payment on August 12, 2007, and recognition of compulsory execution in the event of nonperformance,” at the Gyeongbuk-si Office of the law firm 34-3, Young-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Seoul. On January 22, 2014, the Defendants applied for a demand for distribution in the said case of compulsory auction on the said real estate on January 22, 2014.
As a result, the Defendants conspired to bear false liability for the purpose of avoiding compulsory execution.
2. Defendant A
A. On June 19, 2013, when a lawsuit claiming a loan was filed by a victim C, the Defendant was deposited with an account under the name of the Defendant on the pretext of dividend, etc., with the intent to conceal the money deposited in the account under the Defendant’s name in order to avoid seizure of the deposit claim under the Defendant’s name.
The defendant on June 20, 2013.