beta
Text
1. The defendant's assistant intervenor's motion to intervene shall be dismissed;
2. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant C is a person who served as a person in charge of oil sales as the Defendant’s assistant intervenor, and D is a person who actually runs the Plaintiff and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and Defendant B is the wife of Defendant C.
B. E was supplied with oil by the Defendant’s Intervenor and engaged in oil wholesale business, but around May 201, D and F, a joint manager of E, discussed that the Defendant C, who became aware of the transaction with the Defendant’s Intervenor, would rent the apartment.
C. D requested a licensed real estate agent G to act as a broker for the apartment leased to Defendant C. As a result, on May 27, 2011, Defendant B entered into a lease agreement to rent the lease deposit amounting to KRW 260 million for the rental deposit, and for the term from June 10, 2011 to June 9, 2013, the lease agreement was concluded between the Taeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H, Yangyang-gu, 301 Dong 601 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (I apartment; hereinafter “instant apartment”).
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement.” However, the Defendants did not pay the lease deposit to the Large General Construction, and the down payment of KRW 26 million was paid by G to the Large General Construction on the date of the contract, and the remainder amount of KRW 234 million was transferred to the account in the name of Large General Construction on June 3, 2011.
The Defendants occupied the apartment of this case on June 10, 201. D.
After that, D/F issued a false certificate of payment guarantee in the name of a new bank and received investigation into the fact that the defendant's assistant participant supplied fuel equivalent to 45 billion won to E and prosecuted.
In addition, Defendant C also received illegal solicitation from Defendant C’s F and D to supply oil as a security for the aforementioned false payment guarantee certificate, and charged with committing the crime of breach of trust by receiving KRW 260 million as the lease deposit of the instant apartment, and thereby committing the crime of taking property in breach of trust.
Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2012Gohap536 decided February 15, 2013