logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2016.08.10 2016고단761
공장및광업재단저당법위반
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from around October 2012 to May 2015, run a stock company E, which engages in the production of waste synthetic resin and raw materials in L/C from around December 201 to around May 2015.

On November 26, 2013, at the credit cooperative office located in F, the Defendant entered into a contract for establishing a factory mortgage of the maximum amount of KRW 35 million with respect to the land, including H, as security for the loan obligation of KRW 310 million to the victims’ credit cooperatives located in F, as well as the real estate factory machinery and equipment, with respect to the land, including H, at the time of taking out as security for the loan obligation of KRW 310 million against the victims’ credit cooperatives located in F, and thereafter, the auction was commenced on April 14, 2014 upon an application for consultation with the victims who would not discharge the obligation to the victims’ credit union.

On March 21, 2015 and March 27, 2015, respectively, the Defendant voluntarily, as seen above, sold to the member industry, one voltage (the appraised appraised value of KRW 54,560,000) constituting a factory foundation on which a mortgage is established, and one pulverg (the appraised appraised value of KRW 25,100,000) of a pulverg (the appraised appraised value of KRW 25,100,000).

Accordingly, the defendant transferred the above two machinery constituting a factory foundation, which is the object of the mortgage, to a third party.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Article 60(1) of the Factory and Mining Foundation Mortgage Act and can be prosecuted only upon a victim’s complaint pursuant to Article 61 of the same Act. According to the written withdrawal of the complaint submitted, the victim’s withdrawal of the complaint against the Defendant on July 21, 2016 can be acknowledged. Thus, the instant indictment is dismissed pursuant to Article 327(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow