logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.12.21 2018노2327
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On March 19, 2013, the Defendant first met the victim at the Certified Judicial Scriveners Office, and did not speak as stated in the facts charged, and did not receive KRW 60 million from the victim.

Even according to the fact-finding and performance letter, it is evident that a person who borrows money from the injured party is H.

B. Even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party,

However, since the victim set up a collateral on the house under H's name, sufficient collateral for the borrowed money was provided.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the above argument in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above argument based on its reasoning.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.

A. The written statement of confirmation and performance that the victim borrowed money on March 19, 2013 states that “The victim lends 60 million won to H, and H lend 60 million won to the Defendant, and the Defendant pays 200 million won to H by March 20, 2014, and H pays 200 million won to the victim, and the victim shall be paid to the victim, and the case that the I attorney accepted is terminated at the early stage.”

B. If, as alleged by the Defendant, the victim lent KRW 60 million to H and H repays KRW 47 million to the Defendant as a repayment for the Defendant’s obligation, the Defendant did not have any reason to repay KRW 200 million to H by March 20, 2014, and H does not have any reason to pay the said KRW 200 million to the victim.

(c)

The Defendant, while borrowing KRW 60 million from the injured party, agreed to pay KRW 200 million including the principal after one year.

The injured party set up a mortgage on the ground of the maximum amount of KRW 70 million on the H’s building, but the maximum amount of the above claim does not reach KRW 200,000,000 which the Defendant promised to pay.

arrow