(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.11.17 2017고단2946

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.11.17 2017고단2946

배임

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Around December 1999, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) the Defendant transferred approximately KRW 101.2 square meters of the F site in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “F public land portion”) owned by the Defendant to the victims; (b) agreed to exchange the victims’ share of approximately KRW 118.6 square meters of the total area of the 609.8 square meters of the G site in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “G public land portion”) with the victims’ share transfer to the victims on June 1, 2000; (c) the victims received the portion of G public land from the victims on June 1, 200; (d) notwithstanding the duty to transfer the F public land portion to the victims, the Defendant violated this duty and sold KRW 150 million of the F public land portion to H on January 15, 2015, and sold the amount equivalent to KRW 100,000,000 to KRW 15,000,000.

2. Determination:

A. A person who generally assumes the duty to register the transfer of ownership of real estate in a sales contract, etc. is in a position to handle another person’s business.

However, since the obligation to implement the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership is based on the premise that the right to claim for the registration of the transfer of ownership will continue to exist effectively, the obligation to perform the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership cannot be deemed to have been fulfilled when the extinction of the right to claim for the transfer of ownership expires, and thus, does not constitute a person who administers another’s business subject to the crime of breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 74Do2796, Mar. 8, 197, etc.). B. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence duly adopted by the prosecutor and the evidence presented by the prosecutor can be comprehensively revealed, the defendant is in the position of a person who administers another’

There is no other evidence to prove the facts charged.

(1) The defendant and the victims shall transfer land ownership on June 7, 200 as follows:

참조판례

-대법원 1977. 3. 8. 선고 74도2796 판결

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 공주지원 2017.07.14 2016고단399

-광주지방법원 2016.08.19 2016고합77

-서울동부지방법원 2017.02.16 2016고단3459

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.26 2017고정2299

-의정부지방법원 2016.01.19 2015노2899