logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2020.10.15 2020도7031
배임등
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business causes damage to another person, who is the subject of the business, by acquiring pecuniary advantage or having a third party acquire it through an act in violation of his duty, the subject of the crime must be in the position of administering another'

Here, in order to be “a person who administers another’s business,” the primary substance of the relationship between the parties ought to be to protect or manage another’s property on the basis of a fiduciary relationship, such as the case where the whole or part of the business concerning the management of another’s property is performed on behalf of another person.

In a commercial contractual relationship in a separation relationship, the other party obtains the benefit of satisfaction of the rights under the contract or realization of the claim through the faithful performance of the debtor's duty in good faith.

The sole fact that there is an incidental obligation to protect or consider the other party in the performance of the contract cannot be deemed as a person who administers another person's business, and where the details of performance, which is a typical essential element of the contract, such as delegation, are dealt with with with with with with the other party's property with certain authority.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2019Do9756 Decided February 20, 2020, etc.). In order to secure a monetary obligation, a debtor provided a movable property owned by him/her as a collateral under the Act on Security over Movable Property, Claims, Etc. to a creditor to maintain and preserve the value of the collateral against a creditor who is a movable property, security interest holder, or to not engage in any conduct that may hinder the exercise of the security right by either disposing of or destroying or damaging the collateral, the debtor is obliged to do so, on the contrary, to the extent that the debtor provided a movable property owned by him/her as a collateral

arrow