logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.09.02 2014고단1628
변호사법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On September 2013, the Defendant, who works for a real estate development company, was requested to recover and use the claim in the vicinity of Gangdong-gu Seoul, where the Defendant works for the real estate development company, and then received a claim transfer and takeover contract accordingly.

Considering that selling apartment units to E constitutes a fraudulent act, the defendant's selling of apartment units to E is considered to constitute a fraudulent act, the defendant assigned a complaint for revocation of the fraudulent act to F.

In addition, on December 30, 2013, the Defendant issued 11 million won under the pretext of the agreement on debt collection, to E, who had the complaint into this F and received F contact before filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act.

As a result, the defendant agreed to receive money and valuables from a person who is not an attorney-at-law and dealt with representation, reconciliation, legal counseling and other legal affairs concerning general legal cases.

2. Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act punishs a person, other than an attorney-at-law, who receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits, or who provides or promises to provide such things to a third party, on the other hand, who acts as an agent for a litigation case. However, it does not constitute an element of Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act in cases where the assignment of claims is conducted with the same appearance as that of another person’s acquisition of rights by means of a means to deal with legal affairs concerning a legal case involving another person, or where the assignment of claims is invalidated by being a litigation trust, or where the assignment of claims is actually performed with the assignment of claims, it does not constitute an element of establishment under Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do13915, Feb. 13, 201; 205Do9978, Jun.

arrow