(2015 Godan324) The defendant is the actual operator of B farming association, and the victim C is the operator of D who performs creative and external finishing work.

On March 31, 2014, the Defendant prepared a written contract for construction cost of KRW 24.7 million for the victims at the construction site located in Kuju-si and paid KRW 2 million to the victims the down payment at the site of Kuju-si to the effect that “the creative and external finishing construction for the 1 operation of the wooden building (25 square meters) located in the previous construction site is expected to receive the completed building as collateral,” and that “the remainder 22.7 million won will be paid to the victims as down payment.”

However, the Defendant had a house equivalent to KRW 500 million in the market price and a corporate property equivalent to KRW 1.9 billion in the name of the Defendant in the name of the wife F, but the Defendant had a bank loan and debentures, the obligation for the construction cost, and there was no profit accrued from growing mushroom revenue sources. Therefore, even if the instant building was used as a new loan as a collateral, there was no intent or ability to pay the balance of the construction cost agreed upon by the Defendant, since it was intended to use the instant building as a repayment for other borrowed loans even if it were to receive a new loan as a collateral.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) had the victim complete the building on April 10, 2014; and (c) had the victim acquire the remainder of 22.7 million won property benefits.

(2015 Highest 487)

1. On March 25, 2014, the Defendant concluded that “The Defendant would receive a loan from the victim G at the Hai-si Hai-si Hai-si Hai-si Hai-si to pay the construction cost, on the ground that it would have been difficult for the Defendant to obtain an additional loan due to excessive debt, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the construction cost even if the Defendant was to do so.

Nevertheless, the Defendant had the victim from around that time until July 7, 2014.