민사집행법위반
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
3. The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;
A. misunderstanding of facts: The Defendant provided a road without compensation to the State among each land indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, which is registered as owned by the Defendant, 69m2, Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si (hereinafter “1m2”), and the Defendant did not intend to submit a list of property in accordance with the order for property specification (hereinafter “instant order for property specification”) under the Jeonju District Court 2013Ka1641, 1641, 200m2, 408m2, 400m2, 4574m2, and 1/4 shares (hereinafter “2m2”) among the land in Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, and 4574m2, respectively, (hereinafter “K clan”), and thus, the Defendant was under the title trust from the instant clan (hereinafter “instant clan”). As such, the Defendant did not have any intention to submit the list of property.
Although the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Unreasonable sentencing: The sentence imposed by the court below (the fine of KRW 1,500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The list of property to be submitted by the debtor to a court in accordance with the procedure to specify the property under the Civil Execution Act shall contain all the property subject to compulsory execution, regardless of whether there is any substantial value (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8153 Decided November 29, 2007), and the defendant was placed under title trust on real estate from a clan.
Even if the real estate is the property subject to execution in the compulsory execution procedure requested by the creditor of the defendant, it should be included in the property list according to the procedure of property specification under the Civil Execution Act.
(Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5546 Decided 11, 2007). B.
In light of the above legal principles, the health team and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below are examined.