logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.01.11 2018고정2144
업무방해
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, as a non-party to the charge, is the husband E of the owner of two multi-household houses in Incheon Strengthening-gun, C, and D.

During the period from March 21, 2018 to April 6, 2018, the Defendant constructed two multi-household houses by the company F, which is the complainant, in Incheon-gun, C, and D.

As part of the right of retention due to the non-payment of the construction cost, tree board, emergency bell, franchise card 4 was removed and the entrance was damaged.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the work of exercising the right of retention of F corporation by force that damages the property amounting to KRW 759,390,00, such as the market franchise card 135,000, emergency bell 30,000, 324,390, which is set up by F corporation, the complainant, as part of the exercise of the right of retention.

2. The Defendant asserts that the mother G did not notify the Defendant and removed the complainant’s franchise card.

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the perpetrator who has damaged flock cards, wooden joints, and emergency labels for the exercise of lien by the complainant is the defendant or not.

The Defendant, as the actual owner of the building of this case and the husband of E, who is the owner of the building of this case, did not recognize the right of retention of the complainant, and had sufficient motives to prevent the exercise of the right of retention, and actually obstructed the exercise of the right of retention by preventing the entrance of the building of this case to his own vehicle.

In light of this, there is a doubt that the defendant does not damage the victim's franchise card, tree joints, emergency bells, etc.

However, the defendant's mother G stated that he detached card was detached upon the request of the person who renders his own water in this court, and that he had only 10,000 children without the defendant and her smaller child.

“A statement that he did not report to that person, she expressed that she would be detached by placing it on the face of us without hearing it.”

arrow