beta
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.10.21 2016노887

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the above judgment is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact-finding defendant had to supplement the application for permission for development activities according to the official text received from the Incheon City.

In other words, in order to obtain permission for a development project, such as a tenement that the defendant borrowed and promoted funds to the complainant E, it was demanded to additionally sell data (data that acquired ownership or obtained the consent of the owner) to indicate that the right to use the land corresponding to the access road has been secured.

The access road site is the I-City land and J land (hereinafter referred to as the "land is specified only as the lot number).

Therefore, the part that “it is true that the consent to use the land of 200 square meters prior to J was obtained, and there was no need to obtain a new approval to use the land.” At least, the Defendant was not aware of it (a situation different from the fact recognized by the Defendant).

In addition, in the case of I's land, it was necessary to acquire the right of use by negotiating with the owner (seller) and purchasing all of them. In fact, the defendant has already been undergoing the negotiations to a considerable extent.

The problem was that only the extent of securing the purchase fund remains.

Therefore, the defendant's "I land was in the situation where it was impossible to purchase, and J land was not required to obtain new approval for use, and because the money borrowed from the complainant was thought to be used as expenses necessary for the promotion of the project, repayment of other debts, etc., so even if borrowed money from the complainant, it was not possible to transfer the ownership of land of 370 square meters prior to I to the complainant by using it as expenses necessary for the purchase of the land and the approval for the use of the land. However, it is false to conclude that I would purchase the ownership of land of 370 square meters prior to I but would not have the intention