G failed to pay the Defendant KRW 440 million out of the purchase price of the instant apartment in KRW 650 million, and the remainder that has not been paid was converted into a deposit for rent, and leased the instant apartment to the Defendant’s wife.

The confirmation of the fact of transactions in the first instance court and the lease contract are prepared by E in accordance with the direction of G, a title truster.

D was leased while occupying the instant apartment from July 14, 2003 to June 24, 2013, which was the date when the lease contract was concluded.

Nevertheless, in Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan12035 case on the delivery of buildings (hereinafter “instant civil case”), the first instance court that recognized that the defendant had attempted to obtain a favorable judgment by deceiving the court by submitting a false statement of transaction transactions and lease contract along with the written reply, and that he had attempted to obtain a favorable judgment, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence.

2. Determination

A. In a case where not only the plaintiff who is a party to the legal doctrine but also the defendant in a defensive position is deprived of the performance of his/her property by deceiving the court by means of active methods, such as submitting a false document, presenting it as evidence, etc., and thereby omitting the performance of his/her property by obtaining a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the court, fraud may be established as to the amount equivalent to the value of the property. However, in order to establish the litigation fraud by the defendant, it is insufficient to say that there is a debt such as the plaintiff's assertion is insufficient, and even if it is well known that there is a debt, it should be aware that the court deceivings the

Supreme Court Decision 200