logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.13 2018노1934
강제집행면탈
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. On December 5, 2014, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim on December 5, 2014, paid KRW 100 million to the victim under the name of the performance bond for the sale of officetels; (b) but was unable to carry out the sale by proxy; (c) from August 2016, the Defendant stated that he/she would proceed with civil and criminal proceedings without paying the said amount from the victim.

As the victim was unable to receive damages from the defendant, the Seoul Central District Court made a claim amounting to KRW 100 million for the sale of the claim amount, the creditor, the debtor as the defendant, and the third debtor as the lessor C. On October 24, 2016, filed an application for provisional attachment order with the Seoul Central District Court around October 13, 2016 with respect to the claim amounting to KRW 100 million out of KRW 270,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

When it is anticipated that the defendant will enforce compulsory execution on the repayment of the above lease deposit in accordance with the above provisional attachment order, the defendant concealed the property by entering into a contract on the acquisition of the false lease deposit claims, and concealed the property for the purpose of evading compulsory execution by entering into a false contract on the acquisition of the credit for the lease deposit in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu and Seoul Special Metropolitan City around October 28, 2016.

B. The lower court, based on the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, found that the Defendant had a specific risk of compulsory execution from other creditors, including the victim, at the time when the Defendant entered into a contract for the transfer of the instant claim to return the deposit.

In addition, it is insufficient to accept the claim for the refund of the deposit of this case, and the defendant who is the debtor.

arrow