The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On October 31, 2014, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with B to purchase and sell 1,009 square meters of land and 3 lots of land (D, E, and F) at the time of its ownership and racing.

On the other hand, on October 10, 2013, a part of the D land among the above 4 parcels was about 178 square meters, and on the other hand, the victim G purchased a house for the entire use of HJ in the access road at the time of purchasing the house for the entire use of HJ in the adjacent racing by the victim G on October 10, 2013, and the purchase was already set at KRW 90 million from B to use it as the access road. However, the registration of the transfer of ownership was made at the time after the victim

Therefore, while concluding the above sales contract with B, the defendant tried to divide the access road site into the special agreement and succeed to the obligation to register the transfer of ownership to the victim.

On November 18, 2014, the above sales contract was concluded on November 18, 2014 by agreement between the defendant, victim, and the first husband (B husband) and the third party, and if the injured party fails to obtain the construction permit within one year from then, the sales contract on the access road site was rescinded and the contract was not to be divided.

Therefore, the defendant who succeeded to the duty to cooperate in the registration of division and transfer of ownership as a matter of course until November 17, 2015 according to the three-party agreement, has a duty to cooperate in the registration of transfer of ownership by breaking the access road by obtaining a construction permit and obtaining a construction permit.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated his/her duties and performs extended construction works on the site of the access road from February 2015 to the daily site of the access road, and installed a basic floor construction and concrete package on the site of the access road which is to be partitioned, revealing that he/she had no intention to subdivide it, and despite the victim’s repeated request to suspend extension, the Defendant filed a report of extension to the competent administrative agency on May 29, 2015 and made it impossible for the access road land to be partitioned under the law, thereby making it impossible for the land to be partitioned out under the law.