The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Based on the claim for the construction price against the Defendant, the Defendant: (a) obtained on January 6, 201 with respect to the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Apartment Building No. 101, 703 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant; (b) completed the provisional attachment registration on January 7, 2014; (c) completed the provisional attachment registration on January 7, 2014; (d) completed the registration of false claim for transfer of ownership based on the promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate; and (e) drafted an appearance for having the Defendant bear false debt, thereby evading compulsory execution.

On March 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) registered with the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu Seoul District Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul District Court (hereinafter “Seoul District Court”); (b) registered the Defendant’s right to request the transfer of ownership on the instant real estate based on the reservation to sell and purchase the instant real estate; and (c) released KRW 300 million from his agricultural bank account on March 10, 2014 in order to enter and withdraw from the outside to pay false debts based on the said provisional registration; and (d) delivered the money to F; and (e) ordered F to deposit KRW 300 million with the Defendant’s agricultural bank account without passbook.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the victim by bearing false debt for the purpose of evading compulsory execution by the victim.

2. As to the instant real estate, the registration of provisional seizure D or G was completed on January 7, 2014 with respect to the instant real estate by creditor D or G, and the fact that the registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership was completed on March 7, 2014 with the right to claim the transfer of ownership F.

Since the provisional seizure has the effect of prohibiting the disposal, the third party acquisitor who acquired the ownership of the object after the provisional seizure cannot oppose the creditor of the provisional seizure with the ownership, and the provisional registration for preserving the right to claim the transfer of ownership after the provisional seizure also can not oppose the creditor of the provisional seizure with the ownership even if the ownership has been acquired by the provisional registration after the provisional seizure.

Therefore, even if the right of claim for transfer of ownership has been registered after provisional seizure, priority preservation is made.