However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On February 25, 2011, the Defendant borrowed KRW 300 million from D through C through around February 25, 2011, which was known to C and C for about 30 years, and borrowed KRW 60 million from C around November 2, 201. On April 2, 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 232,70,000 from C through C and subsequently was unable to repay the above debts. On October 17, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the ownership of the forest and fields owned by the Defendant (land 37,920,00 square meters prior to the division, land 28,09 square meters prior to the division), G9, and 96 (hereinafter “the instant forest and fields”). On April 14, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of ownership of the forest and fields to KRW 160,50,000,00,00,000).

On March 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) drafted a complaint stating the purport that “In order to borrow money more than money, the Defendant shall obtain a certificate of personal information on the instant forest owned by the complainant and issued the certificate of personal information on the part of the purchaser of the real estate in order to obtain an additional security from the complainant’s office located in Ulsan-gu Office of Certified Judicial Scriveners on August 12, 2013; (b) misleads the complainant; (c) misleads the Defendant by forging the instant forest and the instant forest and the instant forest on October 17, 2013, by acquiring the ownership of the instant forest and the instant forest and the market price of KRW 5 billion at the market price by forging-gu Office of Certified Judicial Scriveners on August 12, 2013; and (d) submitted a written complaint to the public prosecutor’s office located in Ulsan-gu Office of Certified Local Public Accountants on March 10, 2016 to punish the Defendant’s acquisition of the market price equivalent to KRW 3 billion at the market price.

However, the Defendant, at the time, was unable to repay the existing debt to the above C, once again, the instant case is against the above C for the repayment of the existing debt.