A. The Plaintiff is a stock company established for the purpose of automobile rental business, etc., and is the owner of HNAS car registered on June 3, 2008 (hereinafter “instant automobile”). E is the representative director, and C is the Plaintiff’s director, and E is the former office as the Plaintiff’s director.

The trend of the defendant's husband F and C operated the past hotel as a partnership business.

B. Around May 2, 2008, the Defendant sold at KRW 77,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and completed the registration of ownership transfer to C.

C. On the other hand, C paid only KRW 27 million out of the above forest land purchase price to the Defendant, and thereafter, C sent the instant vehicle to the Defendant on June 5, 2008, instead of paying the remaining remaining amount of KRW 50 million.

At the time, the lease contract for the above automobile was not prepared.

On May 5, 2009, G filed a complaint against G as a crime of property damage, and there was a reason to prove that the police officer in charge at the time is the owner of the instant vehicle, and the Defendant requested the representative director E of the Plaintiff Company to prepare a vehicle lease contract with the purport that “the Plaintiff leased the instant vehicle at KRW 1.1 million per month for three years on June 5, 2008 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) and sent it by facsimile, and the Defendant submitted it as evidence for the instant complaint case.

E. On May 23, 201, the expiration date of the above lease agreement, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document evidencing that the Plaintiff would return the instant vehicle by June 4, 2011.

Accordingly, around June 201, the defendant and her husband F have forged the instant lease contract and filed a complaint against E as a crime of forging private documents, etc. However, around November 17, 2011, the defendant and her husband F were subject to disposition without suspicion (defluence of evidence).