The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) The victim C changed the name of the building permit in the house of this case from the collateral level under the condition that all the debt to be repaid to the defendant is used as the construction cost for the house of this case in Gwangju City D and E (hereinafter “instant house”) and its owner is the defendant, and the person who invested in the construction cost in the instant house is the defendant and the owner is the defendant, 2 the defendant applied for a compulsory auction to execute the defendant’s claim, so there was no intention to acquire illegal gains in fraud, and 3 the judgment of the court in the lawsuit fraud has the content and effect in lieu of the disposal act, and the decision of the court's decision to commence compulsory auction due to the defendant’s application for compulsory sale of the instant house of this case cannot be deemed a disposal act. In full view of the above,

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant intended to recover expenses incurred in constructing the instant house D and E (the instant house), in collaboration with the victim C, but the victim did not comply with it, and as the owner of the instant house became the Defendant and making it impossible to enforce compulsory execution due to the name of the owner of the said house, the Defendant, based on the false obligee F, was served with a false payment order as if the F had a loan claim against the Defendant, and the Defendant was the owner of the instant house in the form of the title of execution with the payment order served as the title of execution. However, even though the Defendant was the owner of the instant house, he was actually the owner of the instant

On August 30, 2010, the Defendant sought the payment of a loan with “creditor F, Obligor A, claim amounting to KRW 60,000,00” at the Sungnam District Court of Sung-nam Branch.