(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.05.03 2015노5149 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2016.05.03 2015노5149

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel is as follows: (a) the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim C on behalf of the victim E, who is the owner of the upper floor (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) that converted the upper floor into the multi-story structure by remodeling the upper floor part of Btel B07 in light of the name of light (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) and received the lease deposit; (b) the Defendant acquired the lease deposit by receiving the lease deposit, or had

shall not be deemed to exist.

On April 4, 201, 201, No. B07, the instant officetel was registered as a non-compliant building due to illegal extension, but there is no reason not to lease the instant officetel, and C also confirmed the current status of the instant officetel and concluded a lease contract directly.

E had the ability and intent to return the lease deposit to C because he owned other commercial buildings than the instant officetel.

Therefore, the defendant acquired the security deposit by deceiving C.

Although it cannot be seen, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case as changed in the lower court is that the instant officetel was replaced with the dunes of the instant officetel B07, and the lower floor was already leased and used by another person as a commercial building. The said Btel No. 207 was registered as a non-violation building due to such unlawful extension. As to the said Btel No. 207, not notifying the victim of the establishment of the right to collateral security amounting to KRW 49,40,000,000 by deceiving the victim and receiving the deposit money from the injured party by obtaining the delivery of KRW 40 million.

Therefore, it is examined whether the defendant was obligated to notify the above facts to the victim and whether the defendant violated the above duty of disclosure.

c. fraud.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2015.08.20 2015고단1594

-서울동부지방법원 2019.11.19 2018가단21297

-서울고등법원 2019.11.14 2019나2013078

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2018.02.23 2017고정397

-서울남부지방법원 2018.11.16 2018고단1367