A. (1) Since the act of voluntary sale and provision of security of the officetel of this case is prohibited by the law and the trust contract, it is not allowed to dispose of it or provide it as security or payment in lieu of payment, the trial and the trial and the trial are all liable for fraud, since all victims who purchased it from the contractor are prohibited by the law.

In other words, Defendant A, the representative director of L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “L”) as a contractor, as well as Q2, the representative director of M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M”), has no independent sales authority; Defendant A, the representative director of L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “L”); Defendant A, without authority, acquired money from victims by double selling; Defendant A stated that payment of construction cost would have been made by accord to L; but Defendant A has no authority to do so; Defendant A does not have the right to do so; under the Act on Sale of Buildings, if the enforcement company entrusted real estate, it is legally recognized only the sale price management through the trustor; and the method and time of receiving the sale price. Accordingly, the Defendants’ voluntary disposal of the real estate in violation of the above Act has a problem in itself; Defendant C issued a certificate of seal imprint attached to W’s sales contract; Defendant A issued a certificate of personal seal impression to Nonparty 1; Defendant J. 2 did not know that it issued the right to sell the real estate to the victim.