logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2017.10.31 2016고합127
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. On April 7, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a punishment of eight months for perjury by the Daegu District Court.

This ruling was finalized on June 16, 2017.

Before the above judgment becomes final and conclusive, the defendant was responsible for overall affairs such as the operation and fund management of the same company as the representative director of the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”).

On January 201, the Defendant received a request from the representative director H of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) which is the contract for the said construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) to repay the loans of the Pacific Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) which was an existing fund source, and then received a loan from the victim’s building as collateral and to lend the money.”

At the time H and G are liable for the amount of KRW 00 billion, one month interest rateed to KRW 00 billion, and the balance of KRW 4.8 billion for the purchase contract of the Gu-U.S., which is a newly-built site of F, was not paid for several years, and there was a failure to pay the existing contract obligation of KRW 00 billion for Jin Construction.

The victim company also received approximately KRW 2.8 billion from G, and in particular the defendant's wife South-North J operated around November 201, 201.

H and G’s financial status was poor by providing the building owned by K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) as security, such as Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu L, and allowing H to get loans to approximately KRW 2.6 billion in maximum amount of claims from the Pacific Savings Bank.

Even if the defendant extended the funds owned by the victim company G, there was little possibility of recovery, and the defendant was well aware of these circumstances in the partnership with H for a long time.

Nevertheless, the defendant collects the existing amount of money according to the duty of due care of a good manager.

arrow