All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Do3829 Decided June 23, 2022 【Embezzlement】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] In a case where the assignor of a claim has collected from the debtor the said claim assigned without notifying the debtor of the assignment of the claim, a requirement for the debtor to assert a defense against a third party, i.e. a requirement for perfection, whether the said assignor has a duty to safeguard the money collected on the claim for the assignee of the claim (negative), and whether the crime of embezzlement is established in a case where the assignor of a claim arbitrarily disposed of the money received (negative) [2] In the case where the Defendant, a building tenant, assigned a right to request return of a rent deposit against Party A, a landlord, to Party B without notifying Party A of the assignment of the claim, received the remaining rent deposit from Party A, and personally availed himself of the money which was in his custody, and was accused of embezzlement, the case holding that ownership of the money that the Defendant received as a rent deposit belongs to the Defendant, and the Defendant and Party B are not considered to be in a fiduciary relationship under which the Defendant is responsible for safeguarding the money for Party B, and therefore, the crime of embezzlement is not accomplished, and based on the above rationale, concluding that the lower court, which determined to the contrary, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine concerning the establishment of the crime of embezzlement in the assignment of a claim | |
