(영문) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2015.04.29 2014고정211

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) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2015.04.29 2014고정211

절도등

Text

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is between Defendant A and a person engaged in water collection business, and the victim C (V, 56 years old) and the victim’s vinyl by entering into a contract to build a provisional building in the victim’s plastic house.

In the process of establishing a provisional building, the defendant demanded funds more than down payment to the victim.

However, the victim was suffering from high-priced construction materials, such as boiler installed in a building where the victim did not respond to this, which caused the damage to his/her own.

Around 16:00 on December 22, 2013, the Defendant embezzled, with one boiler equivalent to KRW 600,000,000, the market value of the victim’s possession of the Defendant at the victim’s vinyl D’s plastic house located in Jinju-si, with one shower equivalent to KRW 300,000,000, market value, and one shower equivalent to KRW 100,000,000, market value.

B. The Defendant suffered property damage.

항과 같은 일시, 장소에서 위와 같은 이유로 천정의 석고보드, 전기스위치, 방문 등을 부숴 약 100만 원 상당의 재물을 손괴하였다.

2. The construction of the building that the contractor under the contract for the construction of the building was to bear all the building materials and to deliver it to the contractor unless otherwise stipulated in the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1138, 1139, Dec. 27, 198). The following circumstances acknowledged by the record are as follows: (i) the Defendant provided the victim with all or part of the materials necessary for the construction of the building, and carried out the construction of the new building; (ii) the building was under the process of construction of the building at the time when the construction of the building was carried out by the victim, and (iii) the construction of the building at the time of the occurrence of the case appears to have been in the form and structure that can be viewed as the building under social norms, and (iv) at the time of the occurrence of the case,

참조판례

-대법원 1988. 12. 27. 선고 87다카1138, 1139 판결

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.07.08 2015노1049

-서울서부지방법원 2017.03.09 2016가단241846

-서울서부지방법원 2018.05.02 2017가단230331

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.06.04 2018가단228928

-인천지방법원 2016.11.17 2015가단224086