강제집행면탈
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On December 20, 2013, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant, as the representative director of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for the return of loans (C. 2013, 91752, the Seoul Central District Court 2013, hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) with respect to the Defendant Company, she had the intent to evade compulsory execution by falsely transferring the said Company’s property to E, who is the Defendant’s wife.
Defendant 1 only the date on which the pleadings in the lawsuit seeking the return of the above loan are concluded and decided
On September 18, 2014, where the location of the vehicle is unknown, the Defendant Company entered into a false sales contract with the FMW passenger vehicle (hereinafter “instant BM vehicle”) owned by the Defendant Company to sell the G MM passenger vehicle (hereinafter “instant visible passenger vehicle”) to E, and subsequently transferred the said vehicle’s name by fraudulent transfer to E in order to avoid compulsory execution by transferring the said vehicle’s name by fraudulent transfer to E, thereby doing so.
2. The defendant's assertion was not anticipated to be disqualified in civil procedure, and it does not constitute a false transfer because the defendant's company and wife sold each of the vehicles of this case normally according to the needs of the defendant company and wife E, and there was no intention or purpose of evading compulsory execution.
The argument is asserted.
3. According to the evidence submitted by the judgment prosecutor, the fact that the defendant transferred the instant BMW and visible vehicle to wife E, such as the facts charged immediately before a judgment on the lawsuit with the victim company was rendered, resulting in the result of causing disadvantages to the victim company, which is the creditor.
However, if the property was transferred by intention, it would result in the disadvantage of the creditor because it was made for the purpose of evading compulsory execution.
Even if compulsory execution is exempted, it does not constitute a "False Assignment" or "harbor" (Supreme Court Decision 2007 November 1, 2007).