1. In the event that an obligor, as to the grounds of appeal by a prosecutor, agrees to establish a mortgage on a movable owned by him/her in accordance with the Act on Mortgage on Motor Vehicles and other Specific Movables, etc. in order to secure a pecuniary obligation, an obligor is obliged to provide a movable as a collateral, namely, a obligor’s obligation to maintain and preserve a collateral, to passive obligation not to damage, reduce, or destroy a security, to which the obligee or his/her designated person would actually deliver a security to the obligee at the time of execution of the security right, and to cooperate in the obligee’s exercise of the security right, such as the obligor’s obligation to deliver the

Therefore, the obligor’s performance of the above obligation is merely an obligor’s own business, and the obligor cannot be deemed to have entrusted the obligee’s business based on a fiduciary relationship with the obligee beyond an ordinary contractual relationship. Therefore, the obligor cannot be deemed to fall under “a person who administers another’s business,” who is the subject of breach of trust, in relation to the obligee.

Therefore, even if a debtor reduces or loses the value of a security by disposing of a security to a third party, thereby causing danger to the creditor's exercise of security right or the realization of a claim through this, a breach of trust

The foregoing legal doctrine also applies to the cases where an obligor disposes of a movable property mortgaged under the Factory and Mining Foundation Mortgage Act to secure a pecuniary obligation at will to a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2020Do6258, Oct. 22, 2020). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court acquitted the obligor on the charge of breach of trust on the ground that there was no proof of a crime regarding the part concerning breach of trust among the charges

Records are recorded in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier.