The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

The facts charged of this case reveal that "the defendant was aware that D around September 3, 2003, about KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000 won, purchased from D, was unable to complete the registration of ownership transfer on the ground that D was not a Chinese citizen, and that the above D would not complete the registration of ownership transfer on the ground that it was not a Chinese citizen, and that he was in custody for the above D in the form of title trust by completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant. After that, the above D had its former G reside in the above apartment, but it had the above G reside in the above apartment, but the above G had the victim complete the above debt of KRW 32,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and around May 7, 2007, the defendant sold the above apartment apartment to 1,000,000,000 won, and thereby, sold the above apartment to 3,01,00,0,00.

First, in order to establish embezzlement, the principal agent must be “a person who keeps another’s property”, and whether the principal agent is “a person who keeps another’s property” or “the custody of another’s property” or “the custody of one’s property” should be determined by the Civil Code,

Therefore, in cases where the nationality, address, location of goods, place of act, etc. of a party to a legal relationship related to another person’s property is closely related to a foreign country and there are foreign factors provided for in Article 1 of the Private International Act, barring any special circumstance, the governing law determined in accordance with the provisions of the Private International Act shall be determined on the basis of the primary basis,

Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15350 Decided April 28, 2011