(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2012.09.26 2012고단602

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) 서울서부지방법원 2012.09.26 2012고단602

배임

Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. From August 22, 2005, the Defendant: (a) from around August 22, 2005, the Defendant: (b) did not receive KRW 100,000,00 from the victim F from the Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul with respect to G apartment; and (c) did not exercise the right of retention on the said apartment; and (d) was an event while exercising the right of retention.

Therefore, the defendant, who was exercising the right of retention on behalf of the lien, has the duty to maintain the right of retention faithfully until the full amount of the claim of the above victim is recovered.

However, on July 25, 2007, the Defendant waived the right of retention in the process of auction in accordance with the decision to commence a voluntary auction upon the request of the National Bank on the instant real property, and acquired the ownership in the name of the Defendant on May 28, 2008 after being awarded the bid price of KRW 152 million.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired the 100 million won proprietary benefits, and the above victim suffered property damage equivalent to the same amount.

2. The judgment of the crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another’s business obtains pecuniary benefits by an act in violation of one’s duty and thereby inflicts damage on another person, who is the principal agent of the business. The principal agent of the crime is required to be in a position to administer another’s business, and the charge of this case is premised on the fact that the defendant is

However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant continued to occupy the real estate of this case directly or indirectly from August 22, 2005 to the present, and the fact that the victim confirmed that the defendant occupied and used the real estate of this case. Furthermore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant was in the status of exercising the right of retention on behalf of the victim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

3. Conclusion, this case.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2013.03.25 2012노1141 (1)

-대구지방법원 2016.06.29 2015노4318

-대법원 2015.06.24 2014도13526

-대법원 2014.08.21 2014도3363

-대구지방법원 2015.10.07 2015고단2720