logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.04.24 2014노3986
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: A person, not a trustee of a simple registration title as to each share in G, H and F (hereinafter “each share in this case”) in the name of G, H and F (hereinafter “each share in this case”) in the judgment of the court below, who has entered into a partnership agreement with G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) to purchase and develop the instant land.

Therefore, since the pertinent land, which is the property of the association, is obligated to be managed with the care of a good manager pursuant to the above business agreement, it constitutes “a person who administers another’s business” as the subject of breach of trust.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or erroneous determination that the Defendants acquitted of the facts charged in this case on the ground that they did not constitute a person who administers another's business by misunderstanding the legal principles on the title trust and the partnership agreement.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendants entered into a partnership business agreement with I to jointly purchase the instant land with K and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of G, H and F, which is the Defendants’ relatives, after purchasing the instant land from K, but the said registration is deemed to fall under the seller’s bona fide contractual title trust, and the above relatives are merely liable for the return of unjust enrichment due to the invalidation of a title trust agreement to the trust agreement, and each of the instant shares was ultimately reverted to the relatives of the Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants’ relatives or the Defendants cannot be deemed to be in the status of managing each of the instant shares for the partnership, and the Defendants cannot be said to be in the status of managing each of the instant shares for the partnership, and the Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap48911, 1

arrow