The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On October 31, 2008, the Defendant: (a) purchased (the transaction amount of KRW 350 million) forest E in cooperation with the victim F of the damage (the transaction amount of KRW 350,000,000) a 33,306 square meters of the forest in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu (hereinafter “the instant forest”) around October 31, 2008; and (b) on November 4, 2008, upon receiving a request from the victim for title trust on the 1/2 portion of the instant forest; and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant on November 25,

A. On September 19, 201, in borrowing KRW 80 million from the Goyang-si Forestry Cooperatives as collateral, the establishment registration of the mortgage (Receipt No. 12505, No. 12505, 12505) over the forest of this case was made in the future of the Goyang-si Forestry Cooperatives with respect to the forest of this case at issue.

B. On September 19, 201, G borrowed KRW 80 million from G on the security of the forest of this case, the registration of creation of a mortgage over KRW 100 million with the maximum debt amount (No. 125507) was completed in G with respect to the forest of this case, and

C. On March 19, 2013, in borrowing KRW 30 million from H, the forest of this case was made in the future with the establishment registration of the mortgage (Receipt No. 37946) over the forest of this case with the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million as security.

Accordingly, the Defendant arbitrarily provided 1/2 shares of the forest of this case, which was trusted by the victim, as security for the Defendant’s personal obligation.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that with respect to the victim’s share of 1/2 of the instant forest land, the sales contract between the Defendant and the original owner is null and void because it excludes or deviates from land transaction permission. The Defendant asserts that the agreement to register under the name of the Defendant constitutes a contract title trust, and thus, the Defendant is not in the position of

B. (1) According to the record of recognition, the Defendant and the victim decided to purchase the forest of this case located within the land transaction permission zone as the same share, and the Defendant did not meet the requirements for land transaction permission, and the entire forest of this case is transferred under the name of the Defendant.