(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.10.05 2017고단5656

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.10.05 2017고단5656

강제집행면탈

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay a fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 13, 2012, the Defendant, at a law firm C office located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B building, drafted a certificate of fairness in monetary consumption lending and borrowing contract with the effect that the Defendant would pay KRW 100 million to the creditor on September 12, 2012 by having the victim D as the creditor and having himself/herself jointly and severally liable, and on March 12, 2013.

Around October 1, 2015, the Defendant registered a business operator in the name of E Mart, in the name of E Mart, under the Defendant’s father F’s trade name, and concealed the E Mart by changing only the signboards and operating the Mart by using the collection equipment, goods, etc. of G distribution.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed the defendant's property for the purpose of evading compulsory execution.

Summary of Evidence

1. The part of the defendant's legal statement consistent with the judgment

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. The part concerning the statement of D or H in the police interrogation protocol against the defendant

1. Written checks of the warden and the police;

1. Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing evidence, such as certification of the closure of business, the Defendant is unable to continue to operate the G Mart under the name of the Defendant due to the seizure of tax liability, etc., and the Defendant is unable to operate the Mart under the name of his/her father F in the same place on October 1, 2015, and continues to operate the same kind of business by using the house and goods of G Mart as it is; F, following the registration of the E Mart’s business, he/she heard the Defendant from the Defendant that he/she was the title of his/her business; as at October 1, 2015, the Defendant was unable to repay not only tax liability but also liability to others, including the victim, and the obligees had already been entitled to the execution.

Therefore, the defendant is now suffering from seizure based on the tax obligation, which is a kind of compulsory execution.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2016.04.15 2016고정20

-대구지방법원 2018.02.08 2017고단635

-울산지방법원 2016.08.11 2016고단1781

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.02.15 2016고단1051

-수원지방법원 2018.07.17 2018고단797