The remaining parts of the first judgment, excluding the rejection of application for compensation order, and the second judgment.

1. Progress of a lawsuit (related to the third lower judgment);

A. On June 23, 2016, the lower court notified the Defendant of the date on July 14, 2016, which was the date on which the pleadings were closed and the Defendant appeared at the trial.

The defendant had been absent on the above sentencing date and continued to have been absent on the sentencing date designated thereafter.

The lower court rendered a ruling of service by public notice on January 20, 2017, pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Article 19 of the Rules on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and subsequently rendered a judgment of conviction on February 16, 2017, which was the second sentence date, without the attendance

B. The Defendant appealed on February 23, 2017 against the lower judgment.

The appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on July 13, 201, after the defendant had been absent on two consecutive occasions due to the change of the defendant's domicile, the appellate court revised the proceedings without the attendance of the defendant on the second trial date on July 13, 2017.

C. The defendant appealed against the judgment of the appellate court.

The court of final appeal reversed the judgment of the appellate court and remanded the case to the appellate court on the ground that “the decision of the first instance court by public notice is unlawful. The court of final appeal (the appellate court and the first instance court prior to remand) newly conducted litigation through lawful procedures, and then reversed the judgment of the first instance court and rendered a new judgment based on the result of the deliberation, such as the statement in the original court and

(Then, the above case was remanded after the Seoul High Court's consolidated proceedings decision, and this Court was consolidatedly tried by this Court. (2) Summary of the grounds for appeal

A. 1) On the first instance judgment, there is no actual loan claim of KRW 200 million against AB on the No. 31 on the No. 31 on the No. 31 on the No. 310 on the No. 310

AB and AC have purchased and sold three parcels, such as the CE, AF, and AG (hereinafter referred to as “instant parcel”).