logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.12.08 2015고단1208
배임
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. On December 11, 2009, the Defendant purchased CMW car in the name of D, who takes over the CMW car in the mutual influent used car selling company located in Seoul Si, and took out loans of KRW 31 million from the victim Aju Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) located in Seo-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “Co.”), and appropriated the money for purchase of the said car to the purchase of the said car. Since the Defendant’s purchase of the said car purchased by the Defendant as collateral registered as a collateral security establishment for the said car with the mortgagee’s damage company and bond amount of KRW 31 million, the Defendant had a duty to keep the said car until the loan is repaid.

On December 2010, the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from E from the French land in violation of the above duties, and made it impossible to grasp the location of the vehicle by obtaining the possession of the said vehicle as collateral, thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to exercise the mortgage of the damaged company.

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired the pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 10 million borrowed from E, and suffered a loss equivalent to KRW 31 million from the victimized company.

2. In a case where a mortgage is established on a judgment motor vehicle, an automobile exchange value is included in the mortgage, and even if the mortgager sells a motor vehicle and its owner is different, it does not constitute a crime of breach of trust merely selling a motor vehicle which is the object of the mortgage to another person (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3651, Aug. 21, 2008), barring any special circumstance, if the mortgager merely sells a motor vehicle to another person (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3651, Aug. 21, 2008).

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do350, Jul. 25, 1989; 2010Do11665, Sept. 13, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case is recognized by the Health Team and the record as follows.

arrow