The Defendants in the “G Authorized Brokerage Office” located in the F of the Hanam-si and the 1st floor around August 27, 2015, are the buildings for which the owner of the housing in the Hanam-si E E-si has the right to transfer the housing after obtaining a construction permit within the adjacent development restriction zone.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the above detached house was a building that needs to be removed because the defendant A used the above duplicatorship in around 1990 to newly construct the house in the Hanam-si of Gyeonggi-do by using the above duplicatorship in around 1987.

Nevertheless, around August 27, 2015, the Defendants concluded a sales contract to sell E’s detached housing in the amount of KRW 160 million to the victim, and received KRW 20 million from the victim to the agricultural bank account under the name of the Defendant A for the same day as the down payment, and received KRW 80 million in cash as part payment around September 13, 2015, and received KRW 60 million in cash for the remainder payment on September 30, 2015, respectively.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to attract the victim to receive property.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that, since the right to remove and build a detached house E (hereinafter “the instant building”) located in the Republic of Korea, the victim is not deceiving, but the Defendants concluded a sales contract with the victim by gathering such circumstances, even if the right to remove and build a house exists, they do not have intention to acquire by deception.

B. In the sales contract, the seller will have the effect of the over-the-counter sales or the performance of obligations resulting from the sale, and the buyer will be aware that there is a risk that the buyer will not secure the rights to the subject-matter of the sale.