logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.01.10 2016고단1994
위증
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, who was the president of the clan B (hereinafter “instant clan”), was present as a witness in the litigation for the registration of transfer of ownership (hereinafter “instant civil litigation”) for the reason of cancellation of the trust in the name of the Plaintiff’s clan No. 7483 and the Defendant’s Dong-gu D land, which was located in the court of 209-ro, U.S., Dong-gu, U.S., Dong-gu, U.S. on September 17, 2015, for the reason of cancellation of the trust in the name of the Plaintiff’s clan No. 7483 and U.S. D land among the said court of the court of 2014.

1. The defendant representative of the plaintiff of this case "the witness of this case was the land owned by the plaintiff's clan and was entrusted in the name of the defendant."

It is true that the directors referred to as "to make efforts to find this," were able to say that they were able to do so.

There is no fact in the question "......"

“The testimony was made.”

However, there was a fact that the Defendant told the directors to the effect that “the above land was trusted in the name of the company and efforts to search for it.”

2. The defendant representative of the plaintiff of the above case found that the defendant, who is the birth of the witness, is willing to purchase the witness's 180 million won, instead of registering the above land to directors around 2005 in the name of clans, in lieu of registering the above land in the name of clans.

In this society, there is a fact that the statement was made in

The testimony “no fact exists” was made to the question “.”

However, the Defendant stated to the same effect as the board of directors.

3. The defendant representative of the plaintiff of the above case that the witness purchases the above land to his members according to other directors.

The witness stated that he had "not later than her birth C" but C had the right to her to her birth, so C had the right to her life.

1.5 Does not have a fluencing fencing fencing

There is no fact to “interpellation”.

“The testimony was made.”

However, the facts are against other directors.

arrow