[외국환관리법위반][집29(2)형,131;공1981.10.15.(666) 14313]
Whether the act of temporary safekeeping of a composition constitutes Article 33 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Control Act (negative)
The act of the defendant, who is a resident, obtained a unification for the purchase of apartment from a Japanese person, who is a non-resident, and kept temporarily, does not constitute "the case where he becomes a party with respect to the occurrence, etc. of claims between residents and non-residents" under Article 33 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of
Article 23 subparagraph 2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, Article 33 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act
Defendant
A co-inspector;
Seoul High Court Decision 78No290 delivered on October 16, 1980
The appeal is dismissed.
The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized that the defendant temporarily stored 1,00,000 UN for the purchase of apartment from mar, Japan, and held that Article 33 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Control Act does not prohibit or restrict the occurrence of claims, etc. against claims between a resident and a nonresident due to temporary custody of means of foreign payment, and therefore, the defendant does not violate Article 23 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act.
In light of the records, the court below's above determination measures are reasonable and pride, and the defendant's temporary custody relationship for the aforementioned reasons should be deemed as the case of the occurrence of claims, etc. due to the "trust" under Article 33 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, and the court below's argument that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to Article 23 (2) and Article 33 (1) 1 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act shall not be employed in light of the fact that Article 33 (1) of the above Enforcement Decree of the above Act is limited to cases such as the occurrence of claims between the residents and the non-residents whose scope of prohibition is limited.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)