logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.05.10 2018고단1
업무상배임
Text

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.

Reasons

1. The Defendants established a promotion committee of the G Regional Housing Association (hereinafter “Regional Housing Association”) in order to carry out the business of newly constructing and selling an apartment complex of 688 households at the Filwon in around 2011. On August 23, 2012, the Defendants entered into a service contract with I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) operated by H in relation to the implementation of the said business.

However, the membership recruitment process does not proceed smoothly, the Defendants were to implement the business of constructing and leasing apartment houses of the rental housing association of 692 households in the project site, and the said regional housing association promotion committee was dissolved around November 7, 2012, and the J promotion committee was established. On November 30, 2012, the Defendants entered into a contract with I for business agency with I and the victim J (hereinafter “victimJ”) on April 17, 2013.

[Criminal facts]

1. Defendants A’ joint crime committed by the Defendants is the president of the victim association from February 8, 2013 to July 16, 2015, who has overall control over the affairs of the association. Defendant B is the former president of the J Promotion Committee and the J Promotion Committee.

A. The Defendant A, as the president of the Victim Association, has a duty to comply with the rules of the Association as the head of the Victim Association, to prevent the Defendant from unfairly bearing an obligation while managing the conclusion of a contract and the execution of funds of the Association. Meanwhile, according to the rules of the Victim Association, in addition to the matters stipulated in the budget, the contract to be borne by the association members shall be resolved with the attendance of a majority of the incumbent union members and with the consent of a majority

Nevertheless, on October 2013, the Defendants collected the service cost that I first executed in relation to the implementation of the regional housing association project from the victim association, and Defendant A collected on October 2013.

arrow