주식의 이중양도와 배임죄 - 대법원 2020. 6. 4. 선고 2015도6057 판결 -

Rather than using the unique legal nature of the shares as a basis for the establishment of breach of trust in the case of double transfer, the transferor's obligation to provide the transfer notice or approval to the transferee is his or her office. The decision to be studied is in line with the Supreme Court's position of denying the establishment of breach of trust based on the difference in real estate and disclosure methods in the case of other properties. Recently, the Supreme Court has limited recognition of the establishment of breach of trust only for double-selling contracts of real estate, and tends to deny the establishment of breach of trust by strictly interpreting whether it is "other people's business" mainly for the double transfer of real estate. The disposition of all personal property shall be fundamentally governed by the principle of private autonomy. Double sale of personal property, double transfer, and double mortgage are areas of civil damages, not subject to punishment. In addition, a series of recent changes in the Supreme Court's precedents can be assessed to be closer to a clearer and more specific violation of office procedures than to the theory of betrayal in the nature of the breach of trust.