When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

From August 5, 2012 to April 2013, the Defendant continued remodeling construction of the E Hospital located on the ground of Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si. On July 16, 2014, the Defendant applied for payment order against F, the owner of the said E Hospital, to “the payment of the unpaid construction cost due to the said remodeling construction work,” and received the payment order for the payment of damages and the payment order for the delayed payment procedure from August 5, 2014 to May 1, 2013, stating that “the payment order for the delayed construction cost shall be paid at the rate of 203,300,000 won and the unpaid construction cost shall be paid at the rate of 5% per annum and 20% per annum from May 1, 2013 to the date of delivery of the payment order” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

On the other hand, on May 13, 2015, upon the voluntary request for auction of the instant real estate to the E Hospital building and its site (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) by the Korea Credit Cooperative Federation, the FF’s credit holders had decided to commence the auction procedure on May 13, 2015. Accordingly, the instant real estate was sold to G on November 25, 2016.

The Suwon District Court rendered a decision to permit sale on December 2, 2016, and G completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant real estate on January 6, 2017.

On March 16, 2016, the Defendant submitted a lien report under the name of the Defendant stating that “Although the Defendant did not possess the instant real estate after completing remodeling construction of the instant E Hospital building, he/she occupied the instant real estate as the secured bond and exercised the lien in relation to civil execution of the Suwon District Court, which was located in 120, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the World Cup, and the Suwon District Court H, the auction of the instant real estate in the civil petition room, “The instant payment order is possessing the instant real estate as the secured bond and exercising the lien.”

As above, the Defendant harmed the fairness of auction as a deceptive scheme.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. The defendant;