On April 2013, the Defendant, at the construction site of an officetel, was sold in lots to the victim through F, which is in a de facto marital relationship with D, the Defendant’s land owner, and the victim E, who is in a de facto marital relationship.

It is possible to pay a lot of profits if they have been sold in lots.

If the problem arises and the sale price is not possible, the interest will be refunded further to the sale price.

In order to pay KRW 100 million to the sales price for officetels 2 debentures, a false statement was made.

However, even if the defendant receives money from the injured party, he did not have any intention or ability to transfer ownership of two officetelss.

On April 6, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 100 million from the damaged party G bank account in the name of the Plaintiff Company B.

2. The Defendant’s defense and the summary of the recognition of the Defendant’s defense is not the actual operator of the company B (hereinafter “B”) that entered into a contract for sale in lots with the victim.

D is merely requested by H to lend money to the said officetel as collateral by the actual operator of B, and if you concluded a sale or sales contract with the victim, the victim who did so would be deceiving the victim.

H around April 23, 2013, around D, paid KRW 100 million to D so that it can be repaid to the victim. D embezzled this.

Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by this court, the following facts are recognized.

B In 2013, the officetel (hereinafter referred to as “the instant officetel”) is sold in lots by remodelling the 7th floor and the 8th floor of the building in the Subdivision-gu, Sungnam-si.