(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.05.28 2014고정246

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) 인천지방법원 2015.05.28 2014고정246

경매방해

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, from November 201 to February 2012, 201, is an artificial fishery business entity who was commissioned to perform construction works for renovation of 1 and 2 stories from lessee D of “190.275 square meters away from the Dogyang-si, Namyang-si.”

In fact, since the defendant had no possession of the above building after the progress of construction work, even though there was no lien on the above building in relation to the claim for the construction cost, the defendant reported the right to retention of 305,800,000 won of the construction agreement as the secured obligation and made the progress of auction by fraudulent means in relation to the case of auction of real estate for ten real estate, including the above building, at the Jung-gu District Court on June 18, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of some police officers against the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. The defendant asserts to the effect that there was no intention to interfere with the auction of this case by the court's report on right of retention, court's written decision on commencement of auction, on-site photographs, and

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, i.e., (i) the Defendant had G manage the building of this case, but the Defendant was not the Defendant, but D possessed the building of this case on June 18, 2013; (ii) even according to the real estate status survey written around January 29, 2013, the Defendant did not entirely state the fact that the Defendant exercised the right of retention on the building of this case; and (iii) even on the photo taken on March 21, 2013, the Defendant did not entirely bear the form such as attaching a banner in relation to the exercise of the right of retention on the building of this case, and (iv) the Defendant occupied the building of this case through D, the obligor of the right of retention, which is the secured claim of the right of retention, after having returned the key of the building of this case from G.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원안동지원 2020.11.25 2020가단20036

-서울북부지방법원 2013.04.10 2013고정465

-광주지방법원 2020.05.21 2018가단506303

-제주지방법원 2014.12.19 2013가단32481

-청주지방법원 2015.05.27 2014나11827