[전당포영업법위반 ][하집1998-2, 736]
[1] Purport of the provision of Article 7 of the Automobile Mortgage Act and whether the acquisition of possession of an automobile by means of a pecuniary claim as security in violation of the above provision is null and void as a matter of course (negative)
[2] The case holding that the act of transferring a motor vehicle without permission in violation of Article 7 of the Automobile Mortgage Act and lending the money as security constitutes an act of pawning down business without permission
[1] Article 7 of the Automobile Mortgage Act prohibits the establishment of a pledge right to an automobile is basically a movable property, but the object of the security can be achieved by entering the establishment or alteration of the security right in the register of automobiles and disclosing it in the register of automobiles. Thus, it is not technically impossible to use the possession of an automobile as a security without transferring it to the secured party, and it is not because it is technically impossible to do so. On the other hand, in violation of the above Automobile Mortgage Act, it is impossible to automatically invalidate the security right on the ground that an automobile has acquired possession of an automobile along with documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership of an automobile as a security against monetary claim in violation of the above Automobile Mortgage Act, and in this case, such security right is a kind
[2] The case holding that the act of transferring a motor vehicle without permission in violation of Article 7 of the Automobile Mortgage Act and lending the money as security constitutes an act of pawning down business without permission
[1] Article 7 of the Automobile Mortgage Act, Articles 5 and 31 of the pawned Business Act, Article 329 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 7 of the Automobile Mortgage Act, Articles 5 and 31 of the pawned Business Act, Article 329 of the Civil Code
Defendant
Attorney Noh Jeong-soo
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.
When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 20,000 into one day.
Criminal facts
The defendant is a person who is engaged in the fixed price business under the trade name of "three employees, such as women, by leasing approximately five hours of office," and without permission for pawning business. The defendant's management (name/story omitted) office (name/story omitted) office located in Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, 1996, in the "(name/story omitted)," and the "daily advertising site loan" advertisement of "vehicle loan" of the "Seoul-gu, Ulsan-gu, 24833, which is the husband of such woman, is established at the rate of 10 million won per month after deducting the passenger interest from the loan of 6 million won to the 60 million won, and the defendant is established at the rate of 1,000,000,000 won from the 7th day of the Seoul-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, 196, and received money from the above 97,000,000,000 won from the 1,76,000,000.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement of the accused in the second protocol of trial;
1. Statement of the suspect examination of the accused prepared by the prosecutor;
1. Statement of each written statement of a senior secretary, Kim Young-young, Nong-Jak, Hancheon-Jak, and Park Jong-Jak, prepared by the assistant judicial police officer;
Judgment on the Defense Counsel's argument
The defendant's defense counsel asserts that the defendant's defense counsel is not guilty for the following reasons.In other words, Article 1 (1) of the pawned Business Act provides that if the claim is secured by the pawned article as a pawned article by the acquisition of the right of pledge as prescribed by the Civil Act on the article, and the period of the pledge is the business of lending money by attaching the terms and conditions attached to the repayment of the claim, if the obligation is not paid by the pawned article, and pursuant to Article 7 of the Automobile Mortgage Act, the automobile is not the object of the pledge and the right of pledge on the automobile is prohibited by the principle of legal real right. Therefore, since the automobile is not the object of the pledge, the defendant could not acquire the right of pledge as prescribed by the Civil Act on the automobile. Accordingly, since the defendant's acquisition of the right of pledge on the pawned article is not subject to the pawned article
However, Article 75 (a) of the Automobile Mortgage Act prohibits the establishment of a pledge right to an automobile is basically a movable, but the object of the security can be achieved by disclosing the establishment and alteration of the security right to the automobile by entering it in the register. Therefore, it is not technically impossible to transfer the possession of the automobile to the secured party without transferring it to the secured party, and it is not because the object of the pledge right is technically impossible to use the automobile as a security. Meanwhile, in violation of the provisions of the Automobile Mortgage Act, the acquisition of possession of the automobile along with documents necessary for the registration of the ownership transfer as a security for monetary claims in violation of the said Automobile Mortgage Act cannot be deemed as null and void automatically. In this case, the security right should be deemed as a kind of pledge right under the Civil Act. Therefore, the defense of the counsel
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts;
Articles 31 and 5 (Selection of Fine)
1. Detention in a workhouse;
Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (attached Form omitted)
Judges Lee Jae-in