logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.27 2017고합721
사기
Text

The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant would demand the victim C to pay rent from the injured party while he/she leased and used the second floor office of the building D in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, for free on January 1, 2008. On February 1, 2008, the Defendant would pay the victim the rent of KRW 24 million from the second floor office of the above building to May 15, 2008.

On May 208, 2008, it stated that the payment of rent can be made without the mold, and as security, it would create a collateral mortgage on the real estate owned by Dong E.

However, in fact, there was no outcome from the business operated by the defendant, and there was no particular regular revenue or property for the defendant. The defendant set up a collateral security on the real estate by forging the power of delegation, etc. under the name of E. Therefore, even if the defendant rents the second floor office of the above D ground building from the injured party and uses it, the victim did not have the intent or ability to pay the rent normally to the injured party.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceiving the victim as above and used the second floor office of the above D ground building from the victim, and did not pay the victim rent of 24 million won to the victim, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to the same amount.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion 1) The defendant did not have a lease agreement with the victim C (hereinafter referred to as "victim") for convenience, and the F, who decided to work together with the defendant, had an empty office, will start the same business.

It was proposed to use the office of this case.

2) On March 2008, the time when the Defendant completed the interior construction of the instant office and intended to fully implement the business, the victim asserted to be the owner of the instant building as the owner of the instant building without permission.

arrow