(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.10.10 2018노766 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.10.10 2018노766

강제집행면탈

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. The court below held that in the case of the Incheon District Court 2016 Ghana 13740 (the Incheon District Court 2017Na 1172) against L and D (hereinafter “D”), the victims cannot be recognized as a substitute payment contract, etc. on the instant real estate between the victims and D, on the ground that the victims and D cannot be recognized as a substitute payment contract, etc. on the instant real estate between the victims and D (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). However, in light of the following: (a) the separate civil judgment does not have absolute probative value; (b) the victims’ assertion and confirmation letter of succession of rights and duties; and (c) the victims and E’ statement, etc., the victims are deemed to have agreed to receive reimbursement on the instant real estate in lieu of the registration of shares in the instant real estate; and (d) in particular, since D’s representative director’s name and seal affixed to verify the registration of shares on the instant real estate, the agreement between D and D were made.

It is reasonable to view it.

B. Even if the victims and D are unable to recognize the repayment contract, etc. for the instant real estate, the victims had a claim for the construction price against D, and the extinction of the said claim for the construction price had not been completed as of January 13, 2016, when the ownership of the instant real estate was transferred under L in the name of L, as at the time of January 13, 2016, since the extinction of the said claim for the construction price had not been completed, the said registration of transfer of ownership constitutes a false transfer conducted for the purpose of evading compulsory execution based on the claim for the construction price of the victims, and the fact that the victims’ claim for the construction price was extinguished due to the extinction of the prescription does not affect the crime of

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment was submitted by the prosecutor.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.25 2015고합1103

-인천지방법원 2017.01.11 2016노2035

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.11.23 2018고정927

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.15 2016고단843

-춘천지방법원 2017.12.14 2016노1224