(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.09.10 2015노1902 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전지방법원 2015.09.10 2015노1902

사기

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) was authorized by the Defendants to provide the instant real estate as security to the financial institution and to borrow KRW 220 million from the actual purchaser after the conclusion of the sales contract on the land and its ground and K land (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at the time of the registration of relocation of the instant real estate on December 28, 2010. On January 12, 2011, the victims obtained the registration certificate and the copy of the register from the Defendants, while knowing the above facts, and thereafter, lent KRW 158 million to the Defendants on the following day, the Defendants did not deceive the victims, nor did they have any intention to acquire it.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances are recognized.

① The Defendants introduced the instant real estate owned by I to the victim, and the victim decided to purchase the instant real estate in the name of L/M.

On December 14, 2010, the Defendants, the victims, and the International Husband and wife entered into a sales contract with the following terms: (a) the instant real estate purchase price of KRW 350 million (the contract amount of KRW 35 million, the intermediate payment of KRW 150 million, the remainder of KRW 165 million, the remainder of KRW 165 million); (b) the date of the contract; (c) the intermediate payment was the date of the contract; and (d) the intermediate payment was the intermediate payment on December 31, 201; and (e) the remainder payment on January 14, 201.

(No. 28, 81, 2, 58 of the Evidence Records No. 1, No. 576, 588). (2) The victim prepared 45 million won as down payment at the end of the Defendants, but he borrowed 10 million won from the Defendant A on the date of the contract, and the Defendants stated that there was no amount of KRW 10 million from the victim in the second investigation conducted by the police, but the Defendants did not receive KRW 10 million from the victim (Evidence No. 189 of the Evidence Records No. 1, No. 189), and the third investigation, the victim borrowed 10 million from the victim and paid the balance.

[Attachment].]

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2020.05.21 2018노3649

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.15. 선고 2018고합407 판결

-창원지방법원 2021.03.18 2020노2426

-부산지방법원 2020.04.24 2019노3320

-수원지방법원 2012.12.27 2012노4372