logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.07.17 2014고단9128
사기
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. On June 13, 2007, the Defendant: (a) constructed a 1st floor below the ground and a 4th floor above the ground (hereinafter “H building”) on the land located in the Manyang-si, E, E, 3,937 square meters, F, 3,718 square meters, G large scale 306 square meters; (b) constructed a H building with the burden of construction cost 3 billion won; (c) the Defendant, C, and D established a “J corporation” with certain shares and agreed to jointly operate the building by transferring the ownership of the building to the illegal person; and (d) constructed the H building by setting the construction period from July 1, 2007 to August 30, 2008.

According to the above agreement, the Defendant would pay the publicly announced amount corresponding to the portion of H Corporation on December 1, 2007 to the victim L at the H Corporation's office located in P Corporation located in Pa on December 1, 2007, from December 1, 2007 to March 1, 2008, for KRW 68,500,000 of the construction cost.

The phrase “the meaning was false.”

However, on April 31, 2006, the Defendant: (a) borrowed an amount equivalent to KRW 1.8 billion from theO due to the shortage of construction cost while executing and constructing the M apartment (current N apartment) in the name of (i) Hoyang-si; (b) borrowed the above M apartment from theO as collateral; and (c) failed to repay the debt to the aboveO even after receiving an additional loan of KRW 2.7 billion in total from agricultural cooperatives as collateral; and (d) was required to bear interest equivalent to KRW 2.7 billion per month for the above loan debt of KRW 2.7 billion on January 31, 2007; (b) was charged for fraud from the aboveO because it was impossible for the Defendant to pay the above M to the construction business operator as collateral; and (c) thereafter, the Defendant did not have the ability to pay the construction price to the victim even if he did not have any capacity to pay the construction price.

arrow