logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2015.07.21 2015고단250
강제집행면탈
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment for six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of three thousand won. Defendant B shall be punished by the said fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A on June 11, 2010, entered into a lease agreement with the victim F and Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 101 G apartment 102 and 103 to the end of July 8, 201, on a deposit of KRW 50 million and the lease period. A around that time, leased the commercial building to the victim and received KRW 50 million.

Defendant

A around November 14, 201, after the termination of the lease agreement, around November 201, the victim ordered the above commercial building to him/her, and the victim failed to return the above deposit to him/her, and the victim was ruled in favor of the Seoul Central District Court on November 16, 201 by filing a lawsuit claiming the return of the deposit for lease deposit with the Seoul Central District Court on May 1, 2014, and received a favorable decision to pay the above deposit and its delay damages, and received the execution clause from the above court on May 21, 2014.

Defendant

A, upon request from Defendant B, who is likely to be subject to compulsory execution as above, drafted a notarial deed as if a female had issued a promissory note by bearing an obligation of KRW 100 million on the part of Defendant B, even though the female did not have any obligation of KRW 100 million on the part of Defendant B, around May 23, 2014.

After that, around May 23, 2014, Defendant B applied for an assignment order of claim against Defendant A’s Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.’s monetary claim, such as wages, which is likely to be subject to compulsory execution with the Chuncheon District Court’s original support, based on the above notarial deed, and the order became final and conclusive on June 26, 2014 upon receipt of the order from the above court on June 10, 2014.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to commit a false obligation for the purpose of avoiding compulsory execution.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. A copy of the judgment, a copy of execution clause, and a copy of each decision;

1. A copy of the register;

1. A deposit for commercial buildings, a copy of a lease agreement;

arrow