logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.12.01 2016고단3932
특수재물손괴등
Text

The punishment of the accused shall be eight months by imprisonment.

However, the execution of imprisonment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant served as a field manager for security guards at a security service company in charge of facility and personal protection services, and when there is a dispute over a right of retention under the pretext of daily employed workers or services, the Defendant is a person who, under the direction of the person requested, mobilized the number of security guards in return for the price at various interest areas, directs the mobilized services, occupies the site in accordance with the direction of the person requested, or plays a role as a "day-to-day resolution" and plays a role in the site through force and force.

E requires D to provide services is operating “F,” a company specializing in real estate auction consulting, lien superficies consulting, and G is working as a “H” director, and G is in charge of managing the funds invested by “H” in connection with real estate auction, etc., and the J is a company related to G.

K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "K") was sold by public auction on August 2012, 2012, the main complex building of the second underground floor and the 11th floor above the ground level in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City L, and the main complex building of the 11st floor above the ground, but the N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "N") and the corporation below the OO.

Since M is jointly occupied and exercises a lien, it is difficult to sell it in normal terms due to the transfer of Mtel 19,000,000 won due to payment in lieu of the unpaid construction cost of KRW 4.344,635 million at N's request, the N's lien is extinguished, and theO occupied M solely and exercised the lien by theO while paying the unpaid construction cost in normal sale.

During that period, in December 2012, E claimed that it received the claim for construction cost equivalent to KRW 4.34635 million from N, which is the actual representative of N, and that it was deprived of the possession that E duly exercises, it applied for provisional injunction against interference with possession on December 3, 2014 to the Incheon District Court for provisional injunction against interference with possession on July 21, 2015.

arrow