logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.08 2016노1697
민사집행법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The claims of this case omitted from the list of property submitted by the defendant by mistake of facts are those not recorded in the list of property because the tax authorities already seized or are unlikely to actually receive, and do not intentionally submit a false list of property.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts ought to be made on the list of property to be submitted by the debtor to a court in accordance with the procedure for specification of property under the Civil Execution Act, regardless of whether there is any substantial value (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8153, Nov. 29, 2007). 2) Comprehensively considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the fact that the Defendant submitted a false list of property without intentionally omitting the instant claims in the procedure for specification of property can be acknowledged.

① On August 20, 2014, before submitting a list of properties on October 13, 2014, the Defendant asserted that the above claims have considerable property value when submitting a list of claims containing most of the instant claims through the defense counsel in the relevant criminal case (Seoul Central District Court 2013 High Gohap1428 (Tax, etc.)).

② Of the claims in the instant case, the defrauded money refund claim and the damage claim are claims that the Defendant filed as the Plaintiff and obtained a favorable judgment.

③ Even if the Defendant, as alleged, did not enter the claim in the inventory, because it had already been seized or had no possibility of payment, it was attributable to the mere legal sites.

arrow