1. As to the embezzlement and breach of trust with respect to the acquisition of business rights

(a) custody in embezzlement includes not only cases where the property is in fact controlled, but also cases where a legal control is possible;

The custody is not necessarily required to be established by a contract of loan for use, lease, delegation, etc., and is also established according to administrative management, customs, cooking, and good faith principle. A custodian shall have the status even in cases where a person entrusted with another person's money and stored it in a financial institution, such as a bank

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do16315 Decided December 12, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do16315, Dec. 12, 2013). In a case where a trustee entrusted with another person’s money deposited in his/her own name in a financial institution by means of custody, the truster is not entitled to seek the return of the entrusted money even after the enforcement of the Emergency Financial and Economic Order on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, and thus, if the trustee, even

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1856 delivered on August 18, 2000).

In full view of the circumstances as indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the purpose of the loan of KRW 90 billion under the “loan and Business Agreement” as of April 8, 2008 is the construction cost, etc. to be paid to T which is a contractor, as well as the amount necessary for the performance of the business of the housing association. In addition to the above 90 billion won loan, the housing association, in addition to the above 90 billion won loan, has ultimately acquired and borne the entire loan for the execution of the instant project by acquiring a borrower’s status as a borrower and then has currently carried out a civil litigation related to the said loan, the above 90 billion loan is the housing association before its registration of its establishment.