logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.04.23 2014도696
절도
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gangnam Branch Branch Court Panel Division.

Reasons

1. The interpretation of an expression of intent is to clearly determine the objective meaning that the party gave to the expression of intent. When the interpretation of the party is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the expression of intent, the motive and background leading up to the expression of intent, the purpose to be achieved by the said expression of intent

(2) In light of the above legal principles, where a contractor concludes a contract with the contractor to supply and construct materials, and the contractor sets the cost of construction including the cost thereof, if the contractor thereafter deducts the cost of construction under the contract with the contractor from the cost of construction under the contract, it is reasonable to deem that the material is owned by the contractor as owned by the contractor, as in the first contract, since the contractor’s supply of materials under its cost burden is interpreted as being the same as in the first contract.

In addition, theft under the Criminal Act means the removal of possession of a person other than himself/herself from possession against the will of the possessor and the transfer of possession to himself/herself or a third party. Thus, the contractor recovered and disposed of materials supplied at his/her own expense after the completion of construction work at the construction site.

Even if the property owned by another person was stolen, the property owned by another person was stolen.

subsection (b) of this section.

2. In full view of the reasoning of the first instance judgment and the reasoning of the lower judgment as well as the evidence duly admitted, the following facts can be revealed.

Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Q”) (hereinafter “C”) as the contractor on October 28, 2009, under the guarantee of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), the owner, the Defendant, the primary structural construction among the new construction works of C’F.

arrow