[1] Requirements for recognizing so-called litigation fraud as fraud

[2] In a case where an application for a payment order is filed without manipulating evidence, whether it is a means of deception for fraud (affirmative)

[3] Where the other party raises an objection against a request for payment order, whether it affects the establishment of fraud (negative)

[4] In a case where a payment order that was filed with false content is confirmed as it is, whether it can be deemed that the crime of fraud was committed (affirmative)

[1] A litigation fraud is aimed at deceiving the court and deceiving a third party's property, and it is insufficient to recognize it as a crime of fraud that there is no right such as the assertion at the time of the lawsuit. It is also required to perceive that the court is deceiving by means of false assertion and proof even if it is well known that there is no right to claim.

[2] In the event that there is an intentional intent to deceive a court by applying for a payment order with false content, deceiving the court shall be a means of deception if it is sufficient to deceive the court of the party’s assertion even if it does not necessarily use false evidence.

[3] Where the other party raises an objection against a request for a payment order, the payment order shall lose its effect within the scope of objection, and the lawsuit shall be deemed to have been brought at the time of the application for a payment order, but this shall not be deemed to have existed the crime of fraud which has already

[4] In a case where an obligor on whom a payment order was served fails to file an objection within two weeks, a payment order is finalized pursuant to Article 445 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002), and there is no objection procedure within the same procedure, such as filing a complaint against the payment order finalized, and thus, in order to cancel it, there is no objection procedure within the same procedure, such as filing a lawsuit for retrial or filing a lawsuit for objection pursuant to Article 505 of the former Civil Procedure Act. This is merely a case where the victim is entitled to a remedy for damages by a separate lawsuit, and if the payment order filed with false contents becomes final and conclusive as it becomes final and conclusive as it becomes final and conclusive, fraud has already become final and conclusive.

[1] Article 347 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 347 of the Criminal Code / [3] Article 347 of the Criminal Code, Article 439 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002), Article 347 of the Criminal Code, Article 445 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002), Article 505 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 200) (see Article 44 of the current Civil Execution Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Do973 delivered on April 24, 1984 (Gong1984, 943), Supreme Court Decision 91Do2427 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1637), Supreme Court Decision 93Do1941 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3018), Supreme Court Decision 95Do357 delivered on April 21, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 2005Sang, 203Do3753 delivered on May 16, 2003 (Gong203, 1415)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Jeonju District Court Decision 2000No1171 delivered on July 11, 2002

The appeal is dismissed.

The court below accepted the evidence adopted by the court of first instance and acknowledged the fact that the defendant applied for a false payment order, "The debtor (victim of this case) shall pay 20 million won to the creditor (the defendant of this case) at the rate of 25% per annum from the day following the delivery of the payment order to the creditor of this case and 25% per annum from the day of full payment procedure expenses," when the check was unable to recover the amount of money at the par 20 million won per annum issued by the court of first instance, since the check was introduced to the defendant due to the defendant's non-payment or at the discounted discount, the court below accepted the fact that the defendant was liable to compensate for damages due to the victim who introduced the cash refund to the defendant, and that the debtor (victim of this case) received the payment order from the judge of the court of first instance on December 15 of the same year after being served with the payment order as above and obtained the original copy of the execution clause by fraudulent means such as forced execution and delay damages due to the execution clause.

However, among the evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the "part from the exchange of the prosecutor's office's statement concerning the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the

In addition, the purpose of fraud is to deceive the court to take the property of a third party by deceiving the court, and it is insufficient to recognize fraud as a crime of fraud that there is no right as alleged at the time of filing a lawsuit. It is required to perceive the court as deceiving the court by a false assertion and proof even if it is well aware that there is no right to claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do973, Apr. 24, 1984; 95Do357, Apr. 21, 1995).

However, according to the record, even though the Defendant did not discount the instant check to the victim, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the victim who has no relation with him/her even though he/she had been given a discount to him/her, and thereafter, in light of the circumstances where he/she instigated perjury on the ground of the cash exchange in the lawsuit of objection raised by the victim, the Defendant applied for a payment order with false content, and the Defendant had the intent to deceive the court. In such a case, deceiving the court would be a means of deception if it is sufficient to defend the court’s assertion even if the Defendant did not necessarily use false evidence.

Furthermore, if the other party raises an objection against a request for payment order, the payment order will lose its effect within the scope of objection, and the lawsuit is deemed to have been brought at the time of application for payment order, but it is not considered to have existed the crime of fraud which has already been commenced.

Therefore, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of fraud.

In addition, if a debtor on whom a payment order was served fails to raise an objection within two weeks, a payment order is finalized pursuant to Article 445 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002), and there is no objection procedure within the same procedure, such as filing a complaint against the payment order finalized, and thus, in order to cancel it, there is no objection procedure within the same procedure, such as filing a complaint, and there is a lawsuit for retrial or filing a lawsuit for objection pursuant to Article 505 of the same Act. This is merely a fact that the victim is entitled to remedy for damages by a separate lawsuit, and if the payment order filed with false contents becomes final and conclusive as it becomes final and conclusive as it becomes final and conclusive, fraud has already become final and conclusive.

Therefore, although there are some parts that are insufficient in the judgment of the court of first instance, when the facts constituting a crime of the court of first instance cited by the court below led to the completion of the judgment, it is clear that the payment order of this case became final and conclusive, the conclusion of the judgment below is justifiable in the same purport, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the classification of property acquisition and fraud, the classification of fraud

All arguments in the appellate brief and the supplementary appellate brief shall not be accepted.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)