(b) Property in breach of trust;

Attorney in charge AK

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

The J-si, J-si, the unit sale of the new apartment units is the executor KK and the Si Construction SK construction (main) and the unit sale of the 34th apartment units above the ground floor above the 1st floor above the 1st floor above the 1st floor above the Posi-si, Nam-si, the unit sale of the apartment units was conducted in the Pohang-si, the unit sale of the 1st floor above the 34th floor above the 1st floor above the 1st floor above the 1st floor above the 1st floor below the 2009 unit sale. Defendant B and C were the joint representative director of the K from August 7, 2009 to October 1, 201, and Defendant L was the director of the Po

Around September 2009, the sales rate was low due to the aggravation of construction games, due to the internal circumstances of the Republic of Korea, and the sales rate was low due to the aggravation of construction games. (A) K continued to take place with the construction contractor due to the interference with the sales business, and the redemption of PF loans was not proper. Therefore, in the case of the construction (State), in accordance with Article 19(8) of the Business Agreement entered into with the (State), the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport may request the K to reduce the sale conditions and adjust the sale price discount pursuant to Article 19(8) of the business agreement entered into with the (State) K. The Defendant A, taking into account the aforementioned circumstances, Defendant C, B and (State) who was the representative director at the time, requested the Defendant L, who was the actual operator of the K, to make the above part.

On the other hand, if the apartment and commercial buildings are sold at a discount of 40 to 70% due to the fact that the (ju) K had already spent a large amount of expenses due to the prop work, the payment of PF loans, etc., the (ju) K could not bring about almost the profit from the project.

Defendant C, B, and L have a duty to deal with the affairs for the interest of K and to cooperate with Defendant C, B, and L in the normalization of the business. Nevertheless, Defendant C, B, and L violated the above duty and cooperates with Defendant A in the sale at a discount as required by E.K. (State). Subject to this, Defendant C, B, and L agreed to the request for KRW 250 million (market price of KRW 11 billion) of the commercial building, and Defendant A consented thereto.

On September 24, 2009, Defendant L, C, B, and A drafted the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Agreement on the Construction of Equi Building S. Building (main) M M on September 24, 2009, the principal K representative director B, C (A), SK construction (B), and the Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. (B) shall agree on the project as follows. From the date of this agreement, Defendant C and C may sell the apartment and commercial building at a discount of up to 40% of the initial selling price, and 70% of the initial selling price, respectively, and B may sell the apartment and commercial building at a disposal rate of up to 5-1 billion won and may not raise any objection to the agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). In addition, on December 10, 2009, Defendant C, B, L, and 150 billion won and 100 billion won (hereinafter referred to as 15-100,000,000,000 won) of the instant commercial building under the name of No.

As a result, Defendant L, C, and B conspired to obtain financial benefits equivalent to KRW 950 million in return for an illegal solicitation in relation to their duties.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the agreement in this case was for the normalization of the apartment sales business in this case, and that there was no "illegal solicitation" since not only the agreement in this case was for the sake of the normalization of the apartment sales business in this case, but also for the interest of the State K.

B. In light of the foregoing, “illegal solicitation” does not necessarily require that it constitutes the substance of occupational breach of trust. If it is against social rules or the principle of good faith, it is sufficient to determine it, and the content of the solicitation and the amount of the consideration related thereto, form, and integrity of the transaction, which is the legal interest protected, should be comprehensively considered (see Supreme Court Decision 2010510290, Aug. 18, 201). The solicitation does not necessarily have to be explicitly and explicitly made, and it is impermissible even if it is implicitly made (see Supreme Court Decision 20051732, Jun. 9, 2005).

C. According to the records of this case, the following circumstances are recognized.

1) (State) On September 28, 2006, K entered into a business agreement with E.K. to newly build and sell the instant apartment complex. Article 19(8) of the business agreement entered into as above states that, if it is determined that there is any problem in the implementation of the project due to the failure to meet the criteria set by the number of households in the sales contract under the period to pay the principal and interest of the loan, delay in payment of construction expenses at least twice, etc., the E.K may request K to reduce the sale conditions, adjust the sale price discount, etc., and ( state) K and the discount rate, etc. shall enter into an agreement with E.K., and if the agreement is not held, it shall comply with the opinion of E.K. (State).

2) Under the aforementioned business agreement, the construction work of the apartment of this case was commenced around May 2007 and the sales of the apartment and commercial buildings began on or around June of the same year. However, around 2008, the sales rate of the apartment of this case was remarkably less than 43.9% until September 2009 after the commencement of the sale due to the Human Entertainment bankruptcy situation and the real estate economic depression, and the sales rate of the apartment of this case was significantly less than the target sales rate.

3) Due to such depression of sales, at the time, K delayed repayment of the 6th intermediate payment (4.5 billion won) and the remainder (4.5 billion won) of the PEF loans related to the apartment of this case, and E.S. construction was not paid more than KRW 70 billion, and E.K. also did not pay the operating expenses of E.K.. Accordingly, the relationship between K and E. (State) has deteriorated between the two companies, and (i) management of K had the apartment model model of this case, and (ii) E.K applied for construction (State) had a lot of legal disputes, such as the prohibition of use of business activities and provisional dispositions, against K.

4) At the time of the housing unsold in lots, not only in the case of the instant apartment, but also in the case of the newly-built apartment in the area of port area, there was a situation similar to the whole country, and also in the case of the newly-built apartment in the area of port area, the sale price was increased through the discount. In such a situation, KS Construction decided that even if the price was discounted, it would be desirable to sell the instant apartment unsold in lots. In light of the latter part of 2008, Defendant A, who was a working person in charge of the apartment unsold in lots of the instant apartment, requested the K K at the time, to cooperate in selling the instant apartment unsold in lots.

5) On September 1, 2009, Defendant B, C, and L, instead of cooperating in the discount sale of unsold apartment units, demanded that the instant commercial building be purchased at a price lower than the market price, and on September 16, 2009, sent to KS a letter of intent to purchase the instant commercial building to the effect that the said commercial building will be purchased at a price lower than the market price.

6) On September 24, 2009, the Defendants agreed to sell the instant apartment and commercial building at a discount within the scope of 40% of the initial selling price, and 70% of the sales price, and upon the request of the (ju) KK’s management, the Defendants agreed to sell the instant apartment and commercial building at a discount by the unsold household of the instant apartment, and on December 10, 2009, the KS construction (owner) took charge of KRW 250 million of the sales price of the instant commercial building and transferred the registration of the instant commercial building in the name of P, a third party at the request of the (ju management) K management, which is likely to cause the compulsory execution of the creditors.

7) After the formation of the instant agreement, K was to receive KRW 10 million monthly operating expenses from E.K. The relevant PF loans were fully paid after the discount of the apartment of this case. However, E.K construction still failed to receive construction payment of approximately KRW 12 billion as of November 28, 201, when the sale of the apartment of this case was completed.

D. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, KS Construction was able to request KS to promote the sale of the apartment complex at the discount, etc. at the time of the agreement of this case, and even if it was not possible to sell the apartment complex and commercial building independently, even though it was possible to sell the apartment complex and commercial building at the time of the agreement of this case, Defendant A through (State) KR to prevent the recurrence of interference with the sale of the apartment complex and commercial building, such as model low-speed, and to secure legitimate rights such as normalization of the apartment sale business of this case and the recovery of the construction cost of KS construction, etc., (State) KS proposed to sell the apartment unsold housing unsold in this case, and even if the apartment unit unsold in this case is sold at discount pursuant to the agreement of this case, (State) KR did not appear to be in violation of the principle of good faith and good faith, and thus, it cannot be seen that the above agreement of this case was unreasonable to acknowledge that the apartment unit unsold in lots, including the above agreement of this case, as it did not violate the aforementioned legal principles.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of the crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of the defendant is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Yang Sung-tae

Judges Shin Young-ju