Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Method of calculating the amount of benefit or loss in an offense of breach of trust where a person obligated to create a maximum amount mortgage creates one in favor of a third party
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Sept. 24, 2009, 2008Do9213 (judgment)
Case name: 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a person who owes another a duty to create a maximum amount mortgage creates one in favor of a third party, thereby committing breach of trust, how is the amount of the pecuniary benefit acquired, or of the loss to the other person, calculated?
Holding
The benefit or loss is, among the security value of the maximum amount mortgage to be created in favor of the other, the equivalent of the security value lost by its use as collateral for the transaction with the third party. The Supreme Court held that, if the security value of the real property remains even after the creation of the maximum amount mortgage before the third party, that portion cannot be included in the amount of benefit or loss.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
타인에 대하여 근저당권설정의무를 부담하는 자가 제3자에게 근저당권을 설정하여 주는 배임행위로 인하여 취득하는 재산상 이익 내지 그 타인의 손해는 그 타인에게 설정하여 주기로 한 근저당권의 담보가치 중 제3자와의 거래에 대한 담보로 이용함으로써 상실된 담보가치 상당으로서
Unofficial English translation
Where a person who bears an obligation to establish a maximum amount mortgage in favor of another person acquires a pecuniary benefit or causes loss to that other person through an act of breach of trust by establishing a maximum amount mortgage in favor of a third party, the pecuniary benefit so acquired or the loss to that other person is the amount equivalent to the security value of the maximum amount mortgage that was to be established in favor of that other person, as lost by being used as security for the transaction with the third party,
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
제3자에 대한 근저당권 설정 이후에도 당해 부동산의 담보가치가 남아 있는 경우에는 그 부분을 재산상 이익 내지 손해에 포함시킬 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the security value of the real estate remains even after the establishment of the maximum amount mortgage in favor of the third party, that portion cannot be included in the pecuniary benefit or the loss.
Factors
- 그 타인 소유의 부동산을 자신의 제3자와의 거래에 대한 담보로 이용할 수 있는 이익
- 당시 그 부동산의 시가 및 선순위담보권의 피담보채권액을 계산하여
- 그 타인에게 설정하여 주기로 한 근저당권의 담보가치 중 제3자와의 거래에 대한 담보로 이용함으로써 상실된 담보가치 상당
- 제3자에 대한 근저당권 설정 이후에도 당해 부동산의 담보가치가 남아 있는 경우
Unofficial English translation
• The benefit of being able to use the real estate owned by that other person as security for one's own transaction with the third party
• Calculating the market value of the real estate at that time and the amount of the secured claim under the senior security interest,
• The amount equivalent to the security value lost, among the security value of the maximum amount mortgage that was to be established in favor of that other person, by being used as security for the transaction with the third party
• Where the security value of the real estate remains even after the establishment of the maximum amount mortgage in favor of the third party
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2000. 4. 25. 선고 2000도137 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2000Do137 decided April 25, 2000
Decisions referred to
대법원 1990. 4. 24. 선고 89도2281 판결(공1990, 1194), 대법원 2000. 4. 25. 선고 2000도137 판결(공2000상, 1360), 대법원 2006. 6. 15. 선고 2004도5102 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When the lost security value is calculated, at what point in time and by what method should the market value of the real property be determined, and should the maximum amount of the claim or the actual amount of the secured claim serve as the basis?
We will re-examine this reading if the standard for the amount of gain in Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is amended, or if Supreme Court precedent on the calculation of security value in the offense of breach of trust changes.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading by another AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, all eight axes matched.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below held that the loss or the amount of gain should be calculated by deducting, from the maximum amount of the claim of the maximum amount mortgage to be created in favor of the victimized bank, the difference between the market value of the apartment and the maximum amount of the claim of the maximum amount mortgage created in favor of the third-party company. It found that the evidence submitted by the prosecution was insufficient to recognize that amount as 500 million won or 5 billion won or more. Accordingly, it did not accept the charged facts treating the loan amount of 8.5 billion won or the maximum amount of the claim of 10,822,000,000 won as the amount of gain or loss, and affirmed the first-instance judgment that pronounced a judgment terminating prosecution on statutory grounds (myeonso) on the ground that the statute of limitations for the offense of breach of trust under the Criminal Act had been completed.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court clarified the legal principle that only the equivalent of the lost security value may be regarded as benefit or loss and that the remaining security value cannot be included. Finding the court below's method of calculation and determination to be proper in light of this legal principle, it rejected the argument of misapprehension of legal principles as to the constituent elements of the offense of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (breach of trust), and dismissed the final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the security value of the real property was entirely exhausted by the creation of the maximum amount mortgage before the third party and no remaining security value exists
- A case in which a person who bears a duty of a different nature, such as a duty to transfer ownership rather than a duty to create a maximum amount mortgage, disposed of the property
- A case in which only the offense of breach of trust under the Criminal Act, and not the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, is at issue, so that the specific calculation of the amount of gain is not a constituent element
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, confirm whether the market value of the real property at the time of the act of breach of trust and the amount of the secured claim of the prior security interest are established by evidence, and whether the amount of gain remains 500 million won or more even after deducting the remaining security value.
From the official text
Points at issue
타인에게 근저당권설정의무를 부담하는 자가 제3자에게 근저당권을 설정해 줌으로써 배임죄가 성립하는 경우, 취득한 재산상 이익액 또는 타인의 손해액 산정 방법
Unofficial English translation
Method for calculating the amount of pecuniary benefit acquired or the amount of the loss to another person where the offense of breach of trust is established by a person who bears an obligation to establish a maximum amount mortgage in favor of another person establishing a maximum amount mortgage in favor of a third party
Summary of the holding
제3자로부터 금원을 융자받을 목적으로 타인을 기망하여 그 타인 소유의 부동산에 제3자 앞으로 근저당권을 설정하게 한 자가 그로 인하여 취득하는 재산상 이익은 그 타인 소유의 부동산을 자신의 제3자와의 거래에 대한 담보로 이용할 수 있는 이익이다. 또한, 전세권설정의무를 부담하는 자가 제3자에게 근저당권을 설정하여 준 경우 그 행위가 배임죄에 해당하는지 여부를 판단하기 위해서는 당시 그 부동산의 시가 및 선순위담보권의 피담보채권액을 계산하여 그 행위로 인하여 당해 부동산의 담보가치가 상실되었는지를 따져보아야 한다. 따라서 타인에 대하여 근저당권설정의무를 부담하는 자가 제3자에게 근저당권을 설정하여 주는 배임행위로 인하여 취득하는 재산상 이익 내지 그 타인의 손해는 그 타인에게 설정하여 주기로 한 근저당권의 담보가치 중 제3자와의 거래에 대한 담보로 이용함으로써 상실된 담보가치 상당으로서, 이를 산정하는 때에 제3자에 대한 근저당권 설정 이후에도 당해 부동산의 담보가치가 남아 있는 경우에는 그 부분을 재산상 이익 내지 손해에 포함시킬 수 없다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
형법 제355조 제2항, 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger