logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.11 2014고단9406
강제집행면탈
Text

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

Reasons

1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the actual operator of the Dokdong retail Business Co., Ltd. (State).

On July 12, 2012, the Defendant was awarded a successful bid for the building and machinery of F’s factory in the name of Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E-201 under the name of Nam-gu D through a real estate auction.

After that, the defendant, in the above building, occupied 110 corporeal movables, such as the compact shower, owned by F, and rejected the F's demand for return without justifiable reasons.

(B) On February 7, 2013, the creditor of F, the (State) bank Korea seized 110 corporeal movables equivalent to 136,483,642 won at the market price, such as the above compact presses, but (State)C was unable to execute its attachment on the ground that the said corporeal movables are occupied.

Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) established a false lease contract on the above factory building in the name of the Defendant’s G in order to anticipate the seizure of the said corporeal movables by the Korea Alley to (State) and avoid this; (b) prepared a false lease contract on the said corporeal movables in the name of the Defendant’s G; and (c) intended to conceal them by falsely smelling the possession relation with the said corporeal movables.

On February 15, 2013, the Defendant drafted a lease contract on the building of a factory between the State (State) and (State) H in the above F factory, and around March 10, 2014, the Defendant avoided compulsory execution by concealing the possession relation of the said corporeal movables by putting the false lease contract prepared as above to the execution officer I, and subsequently evading compulsory execution against D and (State) C in the above F factory.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”)

Defendant, who was actually operating, is F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

(F) with the consent of the representative of the J, F-owned factory buildings (Seoul East-dong E, No. 201, mobile to 201;

arrow