logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.01.10 2019노5788
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, and there was no intention to acquire money from the victim as the proceeds of the instant land sales contract.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged in the instant case.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is the owner of Ansan-si member B, C, and D (hereinafter “instant land”) in Ansan-si, and the victim E purchased the instant land and was introduced the said land to raise ear in the plastic house installed therein.

Around July 1, 2017, the Defendant concluded a sales contract for the instant land at a certified judicial scrivener I office located in Ansan-si, a member G H around August 1, 2017 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the victim and the land of this case, which is the land of this case, the victim’s land via the instant land, which is the so-called “franchise land,” and the seller specified only as the buyer’s land (F and hereinafter referred to as “land number”) as the sale price for the instant land at a certified judicial scrivener I office located in Ansan-si, a member G H around August 1, 2017.

A) It is provided as a condition that the buyer can continue to provide for the passage of the route when the buyer sells the land owned by the seller (F) to another person. (2) If the buyer executes the promise under the above paragraph (1) of the same Article, the buyer shall pay to the seller the amount of KRW 50 million as penalty, and the seller shall compensate the seller for the facility cost of KRW 200 million invested in the Has and shall bear other civil and criminal responsibilities (hereinafter referred to as "the special agreement of this case"). However, in the context of the special agreement of this case, the "seller" under Article 2 (2) appears to be a clerical error of the "Buyer" and the "Buyer" to be a clerical error of the "seller."

A. The entry was made.

However, it is true.

arrow