logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2013.11.07 2013고단199
사기
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who has operated a mutual construction firm called “C”.

The defendant, who ordered Seoul Matro around September 2008, had been re-employed by the Fatro Construction Co., Ltd., which received from the Fatro Co., Ltd., the main contractor, for the extension of the outside entrance and exit facilities in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, 2008.

On May 21, 2009, the Defendant: (a) entered into a subcontract agreement with the victim H, a representative director of G corporation, on the installation works of Alluminium in the name of “C”, which was operated by the Defendant on May 21, 2009, with the victim H, a representative director of G corporation, on the 46.2 million won of the construction work cost; (b) the victim, who became aware of the closure of business on June 25, 2009, demanded the F corporation to prepare a subcontract agreement in the name of F corporation; (c) if it is revealed that the Defendant received a sub-subcontract from P corporation Construction, a non-stock corporation, and (d) around July 17, 2009, the Defendant issued a subcontract agreement in the name of F corporation, a principal contractor, to the victim at the above site of construction work by forging the subcontract agreement in the name of F corporation.

In addition, around that time, there was a dispute over profit-sharing between the defendant and the representative director I, and the above I voluntarily reverse the subcontract agreement between the defendant and FF corporation, and thus, the contract with the defendant and FF corporation was de facto reversed. The defendant was in a situation in which the defendant is unable to pay the contract price to the victim if he did not receive the contract price from the above F corporation because there was no particular property held at the time other than the original construction revenue. The above FF corporation's contract was forged and has no effect. Thus, the subcontract agreement between the defendant and F corporation is not maintained normally, and the defendant does not work for the victim.

arrow