logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.12.17 2014노2152
배임
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that, around April 18, 2012, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the victim E on the creditor G, H, and I, etc. of the Defendant related to the electric source house newly constructed in the FF and seven parcels of land in Jinju-si, in lieu of the Defendant’s debt amounting to KRW 80 million, if the victim repaid the Defendant’s debt to the creditor, etc., the Defendant would make a registration of preservation of ownership on the newly constructed electric source house building to the victim. Under this agreement, the victim repaid the Defendant’s debt to the creditors, such as G, etc., on behalf of the Defendant, the Defendant had a duty to newly construct the electric source house

Nevertheless, on February 15, 2013, the Defendant newly constructed the electric source house in violation of the above duties, and on the electric source house in JJ on February 15, 2013, each registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of the Defendant for the electric source house in L, under the name of the Defendant’s woman M, and under the name of the Defendant for the electric source house in N, under the name of P as the Defendant’s seat.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 80 million and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount from the victim.

2. The decision of the court below is based on the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, namely, ① the victim agreed to register the preservation of ownership of the instant electric power resource for the purpose of securing the Defendant’s claim, and did not intend to acquire ownership; ② the victim delivered documents to the Defendant for the change of the name of the owner at the time of completion of the electric power resource house; ③ the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the victim, etc. was not discussed in the course of consultation between the Defendant and the victim, etc.; ④ the victim’s registration of preservation of ownership in part of the electric power resource house of this case is harmful.

arrow