logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.10.26 2018고단1126
사기
Text

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

An application for compensation order by an applicant for compensation.

Reasons

1. Facts charged;

A. On January 9, 2017, the Defendants: (a) purchased the victim’s house located in C, which was located in C, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) purchased the victim’s land (hereinafter “instant land”) of the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “the Republic of Korea”) for KRW 40 million from the damaged party; and (c) did not yet prepare the balance amount of KRW 30,000,000; (d) the remaining payment period was designated as

6. 30. Of course, in order to pay and secure any balance of the purchase and sale and to prepare a fair certificate.

The construction of a new building on this land and the construction of a new building on this land made a false statement to believe that the building wants to do so as soon as possible, and first request the transfer of ownership.

However, in fact, the Defendants did not have certain income or assets at the time, and Defendant B was in bad credit standing, and even if the instant land was purchased, there was no fund raising for new construction of the instant land, and thus, there was a situation in which the instant land should be appropriated for the cost of new construction of the housing with the funds raised by obtaining a loan as collateral. Unless Defendant B received financial assistance to the siblings, there was no specific plan to prepare any balance, and there was no intention or ability to pay the balance

Nevertheless, the Defendants deceiving the victim as above and completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant land in the name of the Defendant A, the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 40 million, on the same day from the injured party.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to receive property equivalent to KRW 40 million from the injured party and acquired it by fraud.

B. On February 23, 2017, the Defendants made a false statement to the victim C’s house located in the Southern Ma-gun of the Republic of Korea on the following day: “The Defendants would make payment to the victim by the due date on June 30, 2017, with the need for construction cost, and with the loan borrowed money borrowed.”

However, in fact, the Defendants did not have certain income or assets at the time, and Defendant B was in bad credit standing, and on the land in this case.

arrow