logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.05.21 2015노297
업무방해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”) had the right of retention at the construction site (hereinafter “instant construction site”) outside five and three lots of land (hereinafter “instant construction site”), namely, the claim for construction cost under the construction contract entered into with L, which was concluded with L, operated by C, as the secured claim. The Defendant, who is U’s representative director, prevented the construction work on the part of C as stated in the facts constituting a justifiable act, and thus constitutes a justifiable act.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and thereby erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won of a fine) imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On February 12, 2015, the lower court rendered a judgment against U on the ground that U’s claim for construction price against UD was set off against L and the claim for compensation for delay was extinguished, in light of the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, and based on the following facts and circumstances: (a) the U’s lien regarding the construction site of this case was not established, or appears to have been extinguished at the time of the instant crime; or (a) the Suwon District Court 2013hap26879, which was brought against U on February 12, 2015.

B) As of February 28, 2013, U was prepared and submitted to L and financial institutions the 7th page of the investigation record of “the waiver of the right of retention and the statement of field name” as of February 28, 2013, and from August 2013, U was removed from L and the construction site of this case, and had no continued possession of the instant construction site for the purpose of exercising the right of retention by means of displaying staff members or installing placards to inform the exercise of the right of retention. C) The construction of the instant construction project that was contracted from L from around October 2013.

arrow