The nature of the crime of breach of trust in a case where the real estate is offered to another person after a pre-contract for payment in lieu of a condition precedent is not fulfilled (negative)

If the contractor fails to complete the above construction work, the contractor is not in a position to request the contractor to perform the payment in lieu of the above payment in lieu of the construction cost, on the condition that the contractor will complete the remaining construction work, and the contractor will transfer the ownership of the real estate due to the payment in lieu of the construction cost. Therefore, the contractor cannot be said to be an act of breach of duty by again providing the above real estate to another creditor.

Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do815 Decided July 24, 1984

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 84No1480 delivered on November 1, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below decided on July 29, 1983 that the defendant agreed to sell the above apartment 307 units to the above 307 units of apartment 12,620,000 units as payment for the above apartment 30 units of apartment 307 units under the condition of 60 percent of the total construction cost paid by the victim this 12,620,00 among the construction cost of the above apartment 60 units at the office of the park apartment construction site located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, 151-34 of the above apartment 6-14 units of the apartment 12,00,000 units of the above apartment 70,000 won to the above apartment 30 units of the above apartment 30 units of the above apartment 30 units of the construction cost, despite the fact that the defendant's debt security provision of the above apartment 11,1983 units of the above apartment 70,000 won to the above apartment 30 units of the above apartment Y, the above defendant's of the above construction cost.

In light of the records, this only, the victim, at the prosecutor's office, stated that the above payment agreement with the defendant does not relate to the claim for the construction cost which was executed until the time of the agreement, and that if the apartment construction is completed, the ownership should be transferred at the time of the completion of the remaining electrical construction. According to this, it is evident that the above payment agreement between the defendant and the above this only constitutes a condition to suspend the defendant from paying the construction cost even if the remaining construction was completed as in the original time. Since the precedents of the party members employed by the court below differ from this case and facts, the court below's cited the above decision in misunderstanding the purport of the above precedents, but it is obvious that the above payment agreement between the defendant and the above only constitutes a condition to suspend the remaining construction, and therefore, the above error of the court below is not affected by the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, this conclusion is therefore groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)