CONTENTS
- 1. Punishment for Breach of Trust, a Case Questioning Whether the Position Constituted Breach of Trust
- - Punishment for Breach of Trust, the Lower Court's Determination on Whether the Position Constituted Breach of Trust
- 2. Punishment for Breach of Trust, the Supreme Court's Judgment on Whether the Position Constituted Breach of Trust
- 3. Punishment for Breach of Trust, What Is Daeryun's Strategy?
1. Punishment for Breach of Trust, a Case Questioning Whether the Position Constituted Breach of Trust
This is a case in the punishment-for-breach-of-trust litigation that questioned whether the position constituted breach of trust.
The defendant is the representative of a passenger transport business, and Victim 1 and Victim 2 are jiip (vehicle registration consignment) vehicle owners who contracted to consign the buses involved in this case.
The victims orally agreed to pay the company in this case a total of 155 million won each as the purchase price for the buses, of which 30 million won was to be paid at the conclusion of the contract, with the remaining amount to be paid in installments over 60 months.
The defendant thereafter created a mortgage to secure a maximum amount without the victims' consent and obtained a further loan against that mortgage.
Meanwhile, the victims paid the company in this case only part of the purchase price under the above agreement and stopped paying the installment amounts.
As a result, the defendant was charged on a complaint alleging occupational breach of trust for creating a mortgage to secure a maximum amount over the consigned buses, without the victims' consent, before the jiip vehicle owners had fully paid the installment amounts.
Punishment for Breach of Trust, the Lower Court's Determination on Whether the Position Constituted Breach of Trust
In the punishment-for-breach-of-trust matter, the lower court took the view that the defendant, while nominally managing the buses in this case consigned to him by the victims, had an occupational duty not to provide each bus as collateral to financial institutions or others without the consent of the victims, who were the actual owners of each bus.
Nevertheless, the court found that the defendant, in breach of his occupational duty, created a mortgage to secure a maximum amount over the buses in the above case, thereby acquiring a pecuniary benefit and at the same time causing the victims pecuniary loss in an equivalent amount.
2. Punishment for Breach of Trust, the Supreme Court's Judgment on Whether the Position Constituted Breach of Trust
In the punishment-for-breach-of-trust litigation, the Supreme Court's determination differed from that of the lower court.
The Supreme Court determined that, after the victims had concluded the purchase contracts and the jiip consignment contracts for each bus, they had not paid the full purchase price, and that it was difficult to find that the victims held actual ownership of, or the authority to dispose of, each bus in this case before paying the entire purchase price.
The Supreme Court stated that there were also no circumstances from which it could be found that the company had agreed, on the basis of a relationship of trust with the victims that went beyond the conflicting-interest relationship of an ordinary contract, to protect or manage each bus as the victims' property.
In short, the Supreme Court stated that it was difficult to find that the defendant, as the operator of the jiip consignment company, held the position of ‘a person who administers another's affairs’ in relation to the victims, who were the jiip vehicle owners, and it reversed and remanded the lower judgment.
3. Punishment for Breach of Trust, What Is Daeryun's Strategy?
Breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's affairs, through an act in breach of that duty, acquires a pecuniary benefit or causes a third party to acquire it, thereby causing loss to the other person who is the subject of the affairs.
Here, ‘a person who administers another's affairs’ must be one whose role, as where a person handles all or part of the affairs concerning another's property management on that other's behalf, lies in protecting or managing another's property on the basis of a relationship of trust between them, with the typical and essential content of the parties' relationship going beyond the conflicting-interest relationship of an ordinary contract.
Where a jiip vehicle owner has purchased a vehicle from a jiip company in installments, absent special circumstances, the jiip vehicle cannot be regarded as the actual property of the jiip vehicle owner until the installment price is fully paid. Therefore, the mere fact that a jiip consignment contract was concluded does not, by itself, make it possible to find that the operator of the jiip company holds the position of ‘a person who administers another's affairs’ by taking charge of property-related affairs concerning the jiip vehicle in relation to the jiip vehicle owner.
In a jiip consignment arrangement, the jiip vehicle is, in name, owned by the transport company, but the actual right of use belongs to the jiip vehicle owner, so the ambiguity between ownership and the right of use makes it difficult to determine whether breach of trust is established.
Punishment for breach of trust relating to jiip vehicles can be highly complex, both legally and factually, so it is advisable to obtain the assistance of an attorney experienced in such matters.
At Daeryun Law Firm LLP, 🔗attorneys handling criminal matters with experience in breach-of-trust investigations provide legal services to clients based on both theoretical knowledge of the case and an in-depth understanding of the actual investigative process.
In particular, through a mock-investigation system that mirrors the actual investigative process, the firm helps ease the psychological burden that clients may face in a real investigation and supports them in establishing an effective strategy for giving statements.
