logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2015.11.27 2015고정1025
경매방해
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 2,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The Defendants respectively.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) purchased three or more publicly notified telecom buildings in E (hereinafter “instant building”) from D on February 26, 2014; (b) consulted with the obligee A on the succession of the maximum debt amount of KRW 300 million with D as the obligor; (c) on March 24, 2014, Defendant A completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant building; and (d) around April 18, 2014, Defendant A established the maximum debt amount of KRW 45 million with D borrowed KRW 150 million with D borrowed KRW 150 million with D around April 23, 2014, Defendant A established the maximum debt amount of KRW 150 million with respect to the instant building.

Defendant

In recognition that A is unable to repay the principal and interest of the instant building, and an auction is conducted for the instant building. In collusion with Defendant B with Defendant B with a claim equivalent to KRW 15 million, A made a false lease contract on the instant building and made a false demand for distribution, and conspired to divide it into half.

On July 8, 2014, the Defendants: (a) filed a lease agreement retroactively as of April 3, 2014 on the date on which the lessor paid KRW 100,000,000 to Defendant A and lessee KRW 303 of the instant building to Defendant B; (b) did not pay actual rental deposit and monthly rent; and (c) did not reside in Defendant B at the same 7-dong 303 of the instant building; (d) obtained a fixed date from the office of Pakistan-si on July 8, 2014; and (e) on August 21, 2014, the auction was conducted in accordance with the voluntary decision to commence the auction of the branch court of Yangyang-gu branch court (H) on the instant building; (b) on October 31, 2014, the Defendants filed a false report on the lessee’s rights and an application for a demand for distribution with the said court for auction.

Summary of Evidence

1. D. D.

arrow