The non-disclosure of the sale of commercial apartment and the nature of fraud, which are the security for the use of money

Unless a borrower has sold a commercial apartment for the purpose of securing the loan source, but the ownership transfer registration has not yet been made, it is possible for the borrower to rescind the first sale contract with the repayment of the secured debt. Therefore, the fact that the borrower did not notify the second buyer of the fact of the first sale at the time of rent cannot be viewed as deceiving the borrower.

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 82No931 delivered on April 21, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the records, although the representative director of the non-indicted corporation was somewhat insufficient to express the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the judgment of the court below, if the defendant, who was the representative director of the non-indicted corporation, borrowed 4 million won from the wrong acquisition of the non-indicted 4 July 4, 1980 for the purpose of financing the modern market apartment which was constructed in Chungcheong City, and the repayment period due for the purpose of securing the debt, he did not reach an agreement to sell 5 million won from the new list of the non-indicted 30 of the above commercial building in lieu of the debt, again borrowed 5 million won from the new list of the non-indicted 30 of the above 2 commercial building to the Dong, and again borrowed 5 million won from the above 31st of the above 30th of the above 30th of the above 30th of the above 30th of the above 30th of the above 1st of the above 1980s old 197.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)