logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.09.22 2016고단4172
사기
Text

The defendant dismissed an application for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation.

Reasons

1. The Defendant: (a) around March 14, 2008, entered into a contract with the FF Company to purchase H forest land from G for the purchase price of KRW 2.9 billion in order to secure the investment cost in the said forest land, and (b) around August 20, 2008, the said contract was subsequently invalidated due to a cause attributable to G, in order to guarantee the liability for damages that may be returned from G, the maximum amount of the claim for the said forest land is KRW 1 billion; and (c) the mortgage was established in the name of F in order to secure the liability for damages that may be returned from G.

On October 7, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Victim E holds a final claim of at least one billion won to be drawn up to G, which is granted a collateral security right on forest land owned by G as collateral, and is holding the right to collateral security right on forest land owned by G. It would lend the right to collateral security right to collateral security, and would pay interest of 3% per month.”

However, the above collateral obligation is the obligation to return the purchase price borne by G when the sales contract between F and G becomes null and void as above, and the obligation to compensate for damages to be borne by G in the event that it is due to G’s attributable cause. Since at the time of the Defendant’s transfer of the right to collateral security to the victim, the Defendant’s claim against G was not established at the time of the transfer of the right to collateral security to the victim, even though it was unclear whether the Defendant would hold the right to collateral against G, it was confirmed that the amount to be paid to G was determined by the victim without notifying the victim of such fact, and thus, the execution of the right to collateral security was possible. The obligation already assumed by the fishery cooperative, such as the Defendant borrowed KRW 1.2 billion from I and borrowed KRW 150 million from I.

arrow