(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.11.29 2013노2873 | 리걸엔진

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) 부산지방법원 2013.11.29 2013노2873

사기

Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding fraud against victim D, the Defendant’s real estate that was transferred to the victim for the purpose of security before does not cause damage to the Defendant’s obligation, even if the victim’s joint and several liability is the joint and several liability, and the crime of fraud is not established.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following circumstances may be recognized or ratified.

1) The Defendant borrowed money from F on August 7, 2007, and the victim D had no business to “Ulsanbuk-gu E, which is promoting a new apartment construction project, but did not implement the project because it did not contribute to the promotion of the project,” and the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff would complete the selection of a contractor within 20 months from the date of termination of the guarantee and pay the debt with the loan from the bank.” The victim is the Defendant’s 20 million won (hereinafter “instant loan”).

2) However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from F, it is difficult for the Defendant to implement the new construction project itself in a short period, in light of the following: (a) at the time of the process of the new construction project, the Defendant did not have invested funds personally by the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant tried to implement the project by raising project funds from the persons or relatives; and (c) the area of the land intended to purchase at that time and the anticipated purchase price, etc. are not correct.

3) The Defendant had previously transferred the name of the victim for the purpose of collateral security, which was M apartment 403 (hereinafter referred to as “M apartment 403”).

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2019.01.16 2018고단2890

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.20 2014가합10439

-서울고등법원 2015.06.19 2015나1286

-서울동부지방법원 2015.10.08 2014고단887

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.30 2015가합508568