logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.31 2019노972
강제집행면탈
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Defendant A of the facts charged of the instant case is the head of C, who died of his own as a result of the cardio-Japanese color on July 2, 2016, and Defendant B is C’s Cho Jong-si.

On May 4, 2016, in order to conduct a real estate development project jointly with C on May 4, 2016, the victim D had E Law Firm E working for the victim deposit KRW 286,80,000 into a corporate bank account in the name of C.

On June 23, 2016, C prepared a written agreement to the effect that it will transfer it to the victim without asserting any right to the remaining deposit amount for the settlement of claims and obligations between the victim and the victim on June 23, 2016.

On July 4, 2016, the victim filed a lawsuit against C’s heir seeking payment of KRW 185,524,009 (hereinafter “the deposit balance”) of deposit in the corporate bank account in the name of C with the Seoul Central District Court on July 4, 2016, and filed an application for provisional attachment with C as the right to preserve the monetary claim.

On July 15, 2016, the Defendants explained the details of the preparation of the above agreement claim acquisition agreement between C and C, the filing of a civil lawsuit, and the filing of a provisional attachment application, and directly confirmed the relevant documents, etc., but did not intend to keep the balance of the deposit from being paid to the victim on the ground that it is inherited property.

Accordingly, on July 15, 2016, Defendant A transferred the said deposit balance to the company bank account under his/her name, and the victim is likely to be subject to compulsory execution by requesting a company bank to suspend payment. On July 18, 2016, Defendant A withdrawn the said deposit balance at the office of Gangnam-gu Office of Enterprise Bank, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and concealed it at the non-place.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to conceal the property in order to escape compulsory execution from the victim.

2. The lower court’s determination is necessary to establish a crime of evading compulsory execution.

arrow