업무상배임
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A is the president of the K Apartment Construction Association, Defendant B is the chief director of the said association, and the Defendants concluded a rebuilding contract with the purport that part of the construction cost shall be repaid to the representative director E of the L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) (hereinafter “L”), the contractor, in lieu of the six households of the newly-built K apartment, the remainder shall be appropriated from the members’ contributions, and the partnership shall borrow the apartment site as collateral and use it for the construction cost (hereinafter “the instant construction”).
E subcontracted a part of the construction work of this case to the victims, while paying one unit of K apartment in lieu of the subcontract price, and agreed to settle the difference between the subcontract price and the sale price after approval for use. E sold each unit of 502, 603, and 601 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) to the victims according to the above agreement, and the agreement between E and the victims was finalized, and the victims completed the subcontracted construction.
The Defendants knew that the victims would receive the apartment of this case in lieu of the subcontract price from L, and E was the party who issued the contract for sale to the victims, and the victims completed the subcontract construction, so the Defendants and E had the duty to make the victims complete the registration of the transfer of ownership on the apartment of this case after the date of approval for the use of K Apartment.
Nevertheless, when the Defendants and E needed money such as the repayment of loan principal, they completed the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the members with respect to the apartment of this case, and agreed to obtain a loan as security, and accordingly, the Defendants and E created a collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to the apartment of this case to NAC, etc., and 346 million won.