beta
Text
The defendant is innocent.
Reasons
1. On August 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) leased an apartment building No. 4, 501 in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, Da 4, 501, which is owned by the Victim C, with a lease deposit of KRW 80 million from September 23, 2013 to September 22, 2015; (b) obtained a lease deposit loan of KRW 30 million from a new bank at the time; and (c) granted a new bank with a lease of KRW 30 million from the new bank at the time, the Defendant established a pledge right against KRW 36 million from the said lease deposit; and (d) around that time, the victim was notified of the establishment
As such, the right of pledge was established on the deposit for the lease of the above apartment, and the victim was found to have failed to memory the notification of the right of pledge, and there was an error that there was no problem in the payment of the deposit to the defendant. Thus, if the defendant intends to terminate the lease contract of the above apartment and return the deposit, he/she is obliged to inform the victim of the fact that the right of pledge is
Nevertheless, even if the Defendant did not intend to preferentially repay the lease deposit from the injured party after the termination of the lease contract to the new bank, the Defendant, without notifying the injured party of the establishment of the right to lease deposit, acquired the leased deposit amount of 30 million won, which was determined by returning the deposit from the injured party after the termination of the lease contract with the said injured party, even though the Defendant did not intend to receive the refund of the lease deposit from the new bank as the pledgee.
2. The deception as a requirement for fraud means any affirmative or passive act that has a good faith and good faith to observe each other in the transactional relationship of property. Among them, deception by passive act refers to a person subject to duty of disclosure under the law does not inform the other party of the fact with knowledge that the other party was involved in a mistake. In light of the empirical rule of general transaction, if the other party knew of the fact, the other party should have known of the fact.