logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.01.21 2014고단2607
사기
Text

Defendants are not guilty.

Reasons

1. On September 17, 2012, the Defendants owned real estate (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) of the land and building located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si G land and building in Suwon-si, and on September 17, 2012, the Suwon National Agricultural Cooperative applied for voluntary auction (the first auction) based on the first right to collateral security established on the instant real estate due to the nonperformance of the Defendants’ loans. On January 9, 2013, I applied for compulsory auction (the second auction: the Suwon District Court J: the second auction) around April 5, 2013. On April 5, 2013, K applied for compulsory auction (the second auction) and around 70,153,424, 547,167,123, 123, and 300,000,000,000 won (the above auction price of the instant building) around 30,301,00,000 won).

On December 7, 2012, the completion date for the demand for distribution of the said first auction. The subordinate creditor who demanded a distribution by the completion date of the said auction was only M, who is the applicant for the second compulsory auction and the lessee of the said building. With respect to the claim for provisional seizure under L and K's name, the report of right and the application for demand for distribution was submitted to the said auction court on April 11, 2013, which is the completion date for the demand for distribution.

Therefore, after the decision to permit the sale of the above N, if the distribution procedure is conducted, Suwon Agricultural Co., Ltd., the first secured mortgage, was expected to be distributed to the Defendants amounting to KRW 260 million against the Defendants, and the remaining amount was anticipated to be distributed to the Defendants, and K and L’s provisional seizure claim could not receive any distribution.

【Criminal Facts】

The Defendants were aware of the instant real estate at a price lower than the market price, and the Defendants’ claim for provisional seizure in the K and L’s name could not be distributed by finding out the Defendants’ right after the completion date of the demand for distribution by using the victim, and by using the victim.

arrow