(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.06.15 2015고단837

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.06.15 2015고단837

배임

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant was the representative director of the Daejeon Dong-gu Daejeon Special Metropolitan City F Commercial Building Co., Ltd.

The Defendant entered into a contract with the victim H to sell 103 units of the above commercial building to 305,00,000 won on October 24, 2009, and received the sum of KRW 40 million as the intermediate payment on November 24, 2009, and KRW 80,000,000 as the intermediate payment on November 24, 2009, and at the same time, received the remainder payment, and at the same time received the victim’s payment, did not inform the victim of the fact that there was a duty to register the transfer of ownership with respect to 103 units of the above commercial building, even though there was a duty to inform the victim of the fact that it was a public official as of February 2, 2012.

6. 9.9. I double sale of KRW 441 billion to I, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits of KRW 441 billion and causing considerable damage to the victim.

2. Since the Defendant sold the instant commercial building No. 103 to a third party after the lawful rescission of the sales contract for the instant commercial building between the victim and the victim, the Defendant is not liable for the crime of breach of trust.

3. According to the sales agreement (Evidence No. 24 pages), on February 11, 2012, the Defendant calculated the amount invested in the instant commercial building No. 103 as KRW 150 million against the victim on February 11, 2012. However, the Defendant agreed to sell the first floor two partitions to be newly constructed in Boan City in lieu of the instant commercial building No. 103 in advance, and that the sales contract for the previous commercial building No. 103 in this case has no effect at the same time with the issuance of this agreement, and the victim appears to consent to the said agreement by receiving the said agreement from the Defendant.

The victim is not allowed to accept the written agreement, "The existing contract for sale in lots has no effect at the same time with this agreement being delivered." The victim is supplemented ex post facto without permission by the defendant, and there is no consent of the victim.

If so, according to the above agreement, the defendant is in the commercial building No. 103.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.01.12 2016나2017116

-인천지방법원 2018.07.12 2017고단8333

-수원지방법원 2018.06.28 2017고단5019

-수원지방법원 2019.09.26 2017가합3331

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.20 2015나55808