The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The crime of evading compulsory execution under Article 327 of the Criminal Act is a danger of undermining the creditors by concealing, destroying, transferring or falsely bearing a false obligation for the purpose of evading compulsory execution under the Civil Execution Act, where the crime of evading compulsory execution, provisional seizure or provisional disposition is a danger of undermining the creditors. It does not necessarily lead to the result of undermining the creditors, or an actor does not take any profit.

In addition, in a case where an act of bearing a false debt is performed for the purpose of evading compulsory execution under the possibility of having a compulsory execution, it shall be deemed that there exists a risk of undermining the creditor, barring any special circumstances, such as where there exists another asset sufficient to secure the creditor’s execution at the time of

(See Supreme Court Decisions 95Do2526 Decided January 26, 1996, and 201Do5165 Decided September 8, 201, etc.). 2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, the following facts are revealed.

I filed a lawsuit against D who is the mother of the Defendant in Seoul District Court 2002Gahap51475 and filed a claim for the return of the purchase price for the instant land. On October 22, 2002, the judgment was finalized on October 22, 2002: “D shall pay to I the amount of KRW 75 million per annum from January 30, 200 to September 7, 2002; and at the rate of 10% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; and at the rate of 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.” The judgment was finalized on November 19, 2002.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment”). B.

On April 21, 2008, with the judgment of this case as the executive title, the procedure for compulsory auction was initiated against the real estate located in the Namwon-si as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On December 8, 2001, the defendant was the person who has the provisional registration right to the instant real estate on December 8, 2001.