Jeonse fraud victim cleared of false charges of ‘false registration’… “Not intentionally, but for the purpose of realizing rights”

Prosecutors say, “The suspect cannot receive a refund of the deposit… There is no intention to deceive the court.”

A person in his 70s who applied for housing lease registration for a property for which he had not received his deposit back even though the lease contract period ended was cleared of suspicion that he had received a false lease registration order.

According to the legal community on the 15th, the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office decided not to indict Mr. A, a man in his 70s, who was sent to the prosecution on charges of attempted fraud last June. Mr. A was accused of falsely applying for a housing lease registration order for a house that he did not directly or indirectly occupy and thus lost his ability to oppose.

Last year, Mr. A applied for a housing lease registration order for an apartment for sale in Incheon Metropolitan City, where he signed a lease contract in 2019. A few months later, Company B, which won the public auction for the property, filed an objection, claiming that Mr. A received a false registration order even though he had lost the right to oppose the property (the legal power that a lessee can claim against a third party).

Accordingly, Mr. A denied the charges, citing the following points: ▲He signed a lease contract with the landlord in 2019, but did not receive the deposit back after the end of the contract period; ▲The short-term sublease contract was an unavoidable measure to reduce deposit damage; ▲Efforts were made to prevent the loss of opposition, such as leaving items while maintaining the move-in report.

The prosecution judged that “there was no intention to deceive the court in Mr. A’s actions” and that “he did not fabricate groundless evidence.” It is believed that Mr. A applied for a lease registration order because he believed that he had the power to oppose the real estate in this case while he had not received any refund of the deposit for the lease.

In relation to this, lawyer Lee Jae-hyung of Daeryun Law Firm, who served as Mr. A's legal representative, explained, "For litigation fraud, a clear intention to deceive the court must be proven," and "Mr. A, a victim of a lease fraud with a large deposit, did not stop making efforts to protect his rights. Through these efforts, we were able to obtain an acquittal by making it clear that there was no 'intention' in the crime."

Reporter Jeong Ye-eun (ye9@kyeonggi.com)

[View full article]
Jeonse fraud victim cleared of 'false registration'... “Not intentionally, but for the purpose of realizing rights” (Shortcut)