logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.09.17 2020노1589
업무상배임
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not have a contractual duty to not lease the instant facilities to a third party. The Defendant’s lease of the instant facilities to a third party is in accordance with the resolution of the fishing village fraternity, and thus cannot be deemed as a breach of trust. Even if the Defendant’s act is assessed as a breach of trust, even if the Defendant did not obtain property benefits and did not incur losses to the fishing village fraternity.

However, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of facts.

2. The first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s judgment and subsequently determine it ex post facto, although there was no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the process of the trial.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc. In addition, the determination on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without any such exceptional circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). Furthermore, the act of breach of trust in light of specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the business performed in the course of breach of trust, the act of breach of trust refers to any act of not performing any act that is anticipated to be performed naturally in accordance with the provisions of statutes, the terms of the contract, or the principle of trust and good faith, or performing any act that is expected not to be performed naturally, and thereby neglecting the

The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court held that the instant facilities are owned by the fishing village fraternity that should be used for the common interest of the fishing village fraternity, and that the instant facilities are entrusted with the business of the head of the fishing village fraternity.

arrow