logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.02.02 2016고정1460
물류시설의개발및운영에관한법률위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 12,000,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant’s husband C, on September 20, 201, sold 250 square meters of land in the Dong-dong, Daejeon Urban Corporation from the Daejeon Urban Corporation on September 20, 201 (site) as a site for detached houses in accordance with the development project plan E, and died on May 11, 2012.

7.23. 23. A person was entitled to succeed to the rights and obligations of the land as an inheritor.

If a resident enterprise or support institution intends to dispose of land, facilities, etc. sold in lots before completing the construction of a logistics complex, complex, or support facility, it shall transfer it to the implementer or management institution.

Nevertheless, on May 18, 2015, the Defendant sold the said land to F without transferring it to Daejeon Urban Corporation, a management agency, at an authorized broker office where the trade name in the Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong is unknown.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to accusation and accompanying materials by the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan City;

1. Subparagraph 7 of Article 65 and Article 51 (1) of the Act on the Development and Operation of Logistics Facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "Distribution Facilities Act") concerning criminal facts;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant is not a resident enterprise or support institution subject to restrictions on disposal under Article 51(1) of the Distribution Facilities Act, because he/she was sold in lots of a migrants’s housing site.

2. It is obvious that the defendant's spouse C or the defendant does not constitute a company occupying logistics facilities.

However, there is a problem of land price corresponding to C or his successor support institutions, which are operators of support facilities (see Article 27(5) of the Distribution Facilities Act). Article 2(8)(e) of the Distribution Facilities Act and Article 2(4)(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, “facilities of detached houses, multi-unit houses, etc. for the residence of employees and users of logistics complexes” are operated as logistics complex facilities.

arrow