The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the case of the exercise of rights by means of deception, if the act belonging to the exercise of rights and the act of deception, which was the means thereof, are comprehensively observed to the extent that such deception cannot be acceptable as a means of exercising rights in light of social norms, the act of exercising rights constitutes fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do1405, Oct. 14, 1997). Therefore, if a tenant of a commercial building fails to be subject to the application of the Act on the Protection of Commercial Building Lease, and submits false data to the court of execution and makes a demand for distribution as if he did not have the right of preferential payment as prescribed by the Act on the Protection of Commercial Building Lease, then it constitutes a case where he/she made

2. On February 24, 2005, the facts charged of the instant case: (a) the Defendant drafted and submitted a “right report and demand for distribution” of KRW 80 million for the instant commercial building E (hereinafter “instant store”) on or around February 24, 2005; (b) leased KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.4 million from C, the owner of the instant store; (c) on the same day, the Defendant prepared a lease agreement with the said lessor with a deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000 in a separate and conclusive date under the agreement with the said lessor; and (d) around April 27, 2010, the Daejeon District Court prepared and submitted the “right report and demand for distribution” with the deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000,000 for the instant commercial building, by deceiving the court to distribute the deposit amount to KRW 1,501,010,000 for each of the instant contracts as if the said contract was valid.

As to this, the court below shall prepare a back contract at the request of the lessor for tax reduction and exemption, and accordingly, at the tax office.