logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.09.03 2015노1087
강제집행면탈
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

However, this decision is delivered to the Defendants.

Reasons

1. In full view of the evidence presented by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, despite the fact that the Defendants were placed in the position to be forced to enforce compulsory execution due to the guaranteed obligation against the creditor F, who is the victim, and that the Defendants were not obligated to pay KRW 200 million to the Defendant H, the perpetrator of the Defendant B. However, despite the fact that the ownership transfer registration was completed under the name of the Defendant A with respect to the loan of this case with the ownership transfer registration amounting to KRW 200 million, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the facts charged of the judgment below.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the following grounds: (a) Defendant B lent the checks received from the buyer after Defendant B’s husband sold his house around 2008 to Defendant B; (b) on the ground that Defendant B, in fact, deemed that Defendant B created a collateral security right of KRW 200 million under the name of H, which is the husband of I, to secure the above loan obligation; and (c) it was insufficient to deem that the Defendants evaded compulsory execution by taking false debt burden, etc.; and (d) there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendants conspired to establish a false collateral security on the sole real estate in the name of the Defendant A and thereby, could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendants avoided compulsory execution by the victim and harmed the creditors. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s allegation above is with merit.

1) Only during the trial of the lower court, the Defendants asserted to the effect that “I lent to Defendant B the check that I received as a balance of the sales of his own house on or around 2008.”

arrow