logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2017.09.12 2017고정302
민사집행법위반
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A on October 10, 2014, borrowed KRW 1 billion to D and entered into a monetary consumption lending contract, and Defendant B is a joint and several surety.

On May 25, 2016, the Defendants appeared on the date for specification of property in accordance with the final judgment of the claim suit filed by the Defendants against the Defendants to the Busan District Court around Busan District Court (2016Kao No. 477) on May 25, 2016.

On September 8, 2016, the defendant submitted a false list of assets by omitting shares of 15,000 shares issued by the corporation E, 30,000 shares issued by the corporation F, and the defendant Eul submitted a false list of assets by omitting shares of 15,000 shares issued by the corporation E, and 15,000 shares issued by the corporation E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the Defendants’ legal statements

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Statement of the date for property specification;

1. A list of each property;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries about facts;

1. Relevant legal provisions and the Defendants’ choice of punishment for criminal facts: Article 68(9) of the Civil Execution Act (Optional to a penalty);

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The claimant D had already been aware of the existence of shares, and there was no property value as non-issued shares, and there was no awareness of illegality since it sought advice from the head of the office of the attorney-at-law and the certified judicial scrivener.

2. The purpose of punishing a person who submits a false list of property under Article 68(9) of the Civil Execution Act is to ensure the effectiveness of the procedure for specification of property does not require that the compulsory execution by the creditor who applied for specification of property was actually obstructed. Therefore, the fact that the creditor was aware of the existence of property does not affect the establishment of the crime.

arrow