logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.02.05 2014노4025
주거침입
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant filed a complaint with D, the owner of the “Etel,” against D to the effect that the Defendant entered into a sales contract for the said officetel and paid an amount equivalent to the purchase price, and that the Defendant had a legitimate title to possess the said officetel 702 in the capacity of the lien holder and purchaser. Above all, the Defendant filed a complaint with F (hereinafter “F”) which only has an interest in the “Ktel” located on the same lot number, without any interest from the “Etel”, that the Defendant caused the confusion of the building and caused the Defendant to intrude into the “Ktel” 702. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On January 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) laid off the entrance door correction devices of 702 headtel owned by the victim D in Busan-gun, Busan-gun; and (b) opened the entrance door correction devices of 702 headtel owned by the victim; and (c) revised the “building” of the facts charged on the second trial date of the trial of the party.

The intrusion took place.

B. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant, the representative director of the Gtel, entered into a sales contract with D to purchase all “Etel” from D on September 5, 2012, and that on September 21, 2012, the Defendant received a power of delegation from D to delegate all legal powers, such as the management, lease, and name order of Etel, but, on the other hand, the following circumstances recognized by the said evidence, namely, the Defendant asserted the right of retention for the above Officetel on the ground that the Defendant was not entitled to receive construction expenses from D, and was punished for property damage and housing intrusion, etc. as well as D.

arrow