logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.10.01 2013고합428
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)
Text

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is not only a representative director of the Victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) from October 25, 2007 to January 31, 2012, but also a person who worked as the representative director of the E Co., Ltd. from May 9, 2007, and there was a duty to faithfully perform his/her duties for the company he/she works as the representative director in accordance with the statutes and the articles of incorporation.

On April 13, 2009, the Defendant issued the instant payment order, stating that the victim company concurrently serves as the representative director of the victim company and E company even though the victim company did not remain the construction cost to be paid to E company, the obligee is the E company, the obligor is D, and the claim amount is 1.2 billion won.

B. The application was filed.

Then, around April 30, 2009, the Defendant, as the representative director of the Victim Company, was served with the instant payment order and did not raise any objection to the court in violation of his/her occupational duty, and thus, the instant payment order became final and conclusive around May 15, 2009.

As a result, the defendant violated his duties, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to 1.2 billion won to E Co., Ltd., and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount to the victim company.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Defendant’s defense counsel 1) The Defendant did not participate in the instant payment order, and the Defendant did not know that the instant payment order was served on the victim company. 2) Even if the Defendant applied for the instant payment order and the said payment order was finalized, the Defendant’s defense that the Defendant was the representative director owned the claim for construction cost, etc. against the victim company, and thus, it cannot be said that property damage was inflicted on the victim company.

B. Determination 1.

arrow