beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
On November 20, 2007, the defendant in the factory room had lent KRW 60 million to the victim C on or around November 20, 2007, and received the certificate of borrowing. However, the victim thereafter had the certificate of borrowing KRW 30 million around February 25, 2010, and the same year.
7. There was a fact that around 19.1 billion won was paid directly by the Defendant as a check.
Nevertheless, around May 27, 2013, the Defendant applied for a payment order against C to the Seosan District Court of the Daejeon District Court in order to acquire economic benefits by deceiving the competent division, but the Defendant attempted to acquire economic benefits by asserting that the victim did not repay the above loan at all and by submitting the certificate of loan, etc. in a document evidencing that the victim did not repay the loan at all.
6.17.Around 17.m., the victim had failed to bring an objection against the above payment order and subsequently failed to bring such objection.
Judgment
1. The relevant legal doctrine fraud is an offense involving acquiring the other party’s property or pecuniary advantage by deceiving a court and obtaining a favorable judgment for himself/herself. The punishment of such fraud inevitably brings about the chilling of the civil trial system that any person may seek favorable benefit to himself/herself and receive remedy through a lawsuit. Thus, unless the accused has acknowledged a crime, unless the facts different from the facts in the lawsuit are objectively apparent or the accused clearly knows that his/her assertion in the lawsuit is clearly false or attempts to manipulate evidence, he/she shall not be found guilty. Under the party’s legal doctrine structure, arguments or evidence favorable to himself/herself shall be presented to his/her own argument under the party’s own responsibility, and even though he/she has favorable evidence to the other party.
Even if there is a knowledge of facts favorable to or against the other party, it is difficult to deem that there is an obligation to withdraw on behalf of the other party.