(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.07.27 2016노1163

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 2017.07.27 2016노1163

횡령

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles obtained from the injured party the right to dispose of the gold-type 2 sets (BS 1 sets and CS 1 sets) listed in the judgment of the court below from the injured party, and sold CS 1 sets (hereinafter “the instant machinery”) among them to F, so the Defendant did not constitute embezzlement, and there was no intention of unlawful acquisition against the Defendant regarding the disposal of the instant machinery.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

B. Even if the charge of this case is found guilty, in light of the fact that the Defendant did not properly understand the special agreement on the reservation of ownership between the victim and that the existing practice occurred in the process of responding to the above, the sentence (3 million won) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In conclusion of a contract of sale and purchase of movable property for determination of misunderstanding of the legal principles, where the seller delivers the object to the buyer before the seller receives the price in full, but the so-called special agreement for the reservation of ownership that the ownership of the object is reserved to the seller and the ownership is transferred to the buyer at the time when the price is paid in full, the agreement between the parties to transfer the ownership of the object is a condition precedent that the ownership of the object shall be established at the time of the conclusion of the contract of sale and delivery of the object, and thus, the object

Even if there are no special circumstances, the seller may claim the ownership of the reserved object for the buyer as well as the third party until the price is paid in full, and such a legal principle is a sales contract which made a special agreement for the reservation of ownership.

유사 판례

-대법원 1999. 9. 7. 선고 99다30534 판결

-대법원 1996. 6. 28. 선고 96다14807 판결

-대법원 2007. 6. 1. 선고 2006도8400 판결

-대전지방법원 2018.05.30 2017가단224873

-수원지방법원 2016.07.20 2015나42800