logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2015.02.13 2014고정1056
위증
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 20, 2012, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath as a witness of the case of the 2012Gahap2247 of the said court in the Incheon District Court's Branch Branch Office 354, 445-1, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon District Court's 2012.

The Defendant testified to the Defendant of the Plaintiff’s agent as follows: “The Plaintiff asked the witness, who was the president of the Defendant Bank at the time, to the witness, who was the president of the Defendant Bank, for an intermediate payment loan of G apartments, and urged the repayment of the existing bonds by attracting an intermediate payment loan of G apartments.”

However, the fact was that F, who was the president of the defendant bank, did not urge the defendant to repay the bonds related to the existing H-type reconstruction by inviting the defendant to offer an intermediate payment loan for G apartment with the name of the name holder.

On July 2006, the Defendant testified to the Plaintiff’s agent’s “At the time F requested the witness to change the list of prospective occupants in advance,” but the Defendant again testified to the witness at the beginning of August 2006, that “I would like to request the name-holder to recruit even if I would like to do so, I would like to request the list.”

However, there was no demand that F, who was the president of the Defendant Bank, requested in advance the list of prospective occupants to be the Defendant at the beginning of July 2006 and around August 2006.

The Defendant’s agent’s “Before the date of concluding a contract for sale in lots on August 7, 2006, the Defendant bank demanded a name-based contractor list to the Postal Construction Co., Ltd. prior to the date of entering into the contract for sale in lots on August 7, 2006, because the Postal Construction Co., Ltd. was actually receiving the instant intermediate payment from the Defendant bank as the debtor.”

arrow