[업무상배임][공1985.11.1.(763),1360]
In the event that the whole amount of compensation for breach of trust is included within the scope of the originally agreed penalty or non-performance of the duty of the compensation, whether the business operator's breach of trust has been committed;
If a sales contract is terminated due to a seller's breach of contract and the seller compensates for the amount equivalent to the down payment according to a special contract with the buyer as a whole, if the damages paid by the buyer in consultation with the buyer does not exceed the amount equivalent to the down payment, then even if the specific details include the amount equivalent to the placement fee paid by the buyer in the course of concluding the contract, it is merely the payment within the scope of the damages that the seller is liable to compensate for to the buyer, and it cannot be deemed that the broker pays the amount within the scope of damages that the seller is liable to return to the buyer on behalf
Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act
Defendant
Prosecutor
Daejeon District Court Decision 83No237 delivered on April 4, 1984
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.
As determined by the court below, the purchase and sale contract of the land between the member of the Korean clan, the clan, and the non-party member of the clan was cancelled due to the violation of the seller's clan, and if the seller is in violation of the contract, there was a special agreement that the amount of the down payment should be compensated for damage of the buyer, even if the defendant who was in the position of managing the business of the clan included the amount of the down payment to the purchaser in the course of concluding the contract after the cancellation of the contract, even though the amount does not exceed the down payment amount, it is merely that the defendant paid the amount within the scope of the damages that the member of the clan is liable for compensation, and it cannot be deemed that the member of the clan paid the obligation to return to the buyer, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant violated the so-called duties of the defendant. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the introduction of damages paid to the buyer and the non-party member's obligation to return the down payment instead of the contract.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju