The defendant is not guilty. The summary of this judgment shall be announced publicly.

1. Around September 7, 2012, the Defendant submitted a written confirmation of ownership to the employee in charge of the Seoul Southern-gu D Unauthorized Housing (hereinafter “instant unauthorized Housing”) at the Incheon Nam-gu Incheon District Headquarters for Urban Regeneration and Housing Corporation (23, Nam-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, Incheon, Seoul, as the owner of the instant unauthorized Housing (hereinafter “Unauthorized Housing”) and filed an application for compensation for obstacles to the instant unauthorized Housing.

However, on August 23, 2002, the Defendant was not the owner of the above house and did not have the right to file an application for compensation for obstacles to the above house, since he was only residing in the above house after he received KRW 30 million from E and sold the instant unauthorized house to E and entered into a monthly lease contract with E.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, prepared a written agreement on compensation for obstacles with the victim, and received 66,503,060 won from the victim as the agreement on compensation for obstacles around September 28, 2012, and acquired it by deception.

2. The facts charged in this case are based on the premise that the Defendant entered into a sales contract with E on the instant unauthorized housing around 2002, and the ownership of the said housing was lost by receiving the purchase price, and that E acquired the ownership of the said housing.

Even if a transferee of an unregistered building without permission fails to obtain the registration of ownership transfer, it is impossible to acquire the ownership of the building unless the registration of ownership transfer is completed, and it cannot be deemed that there is a customary real right equivalent to the ownership to the transferee of the building in such an condition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da53006, Jun. 14, 1996; 2007Da11347, Jun. 15, 2007). According to the above legal principles, E did not acquire the ownership of the instant unauthorized house despite the above sales contract, and the Defendant was the owner of the said house until the above obstruction was compensated.