The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the withdrawal and cancellation of the application for compulsory auction of this case by the victim company of this case was not done upon the request of the defendant, but it was done at will by the victim company and there was no deception by the defendant.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. A. Around June 13, 2008, the summary of the facts charged was the owner of the land and the building located in C, and around June 13, 2008, the Defendant concluded a construction contract with the victim D Co., Ltd., stating that “65 million won of total construction cost, 100 million won of down payment, 100 million won of down payment, completion of aggregate construction work, and the remainder of construction cost shall be purchased and sold apartment housing that the Defendant had resided at the time, and when construction of new building is completed,

After that, the victim company completed the construction work and completed the registration of preservation of ownership of the building in the name of the defendant around May 18, 2009, the defendant did not pay KRW 245 million out of the construction cost.

On September 21, 2009, the injured company registered provisional seizure of real estate against the above land and building. On May 14, 2010, the injured company received payment of the construction cost of KRW 80 million from the Defendant, and on July 20, 2010, registered the decision of compulsory commencement of auction with the claim amount of KRW 165 million as of July 20, 201.

On November 2010, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would sell the land and buildings or immediately repay the construction price by receiving the deposit for commercial buildings” at the office of the victim company located in the E-building 402, the Defendant, “The real estate would not be sold or sold due to provisional seizure or auction of real estate applied by the victim company because it would not be sold or sold due to provisional seizure or auction of real estate applied by the victim company.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to immediately repay the construction cost, even if he had cancelled provisional seizure by the victim company and withdrawn the auction.

This is the defendant.