A. On December 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) entered into an oral contract for the extension of the victim F and the second floor of the new apartment tower of the G Building at the E office of the said limited company E company; and (b) did not have prepared the standard contract for the additional construction works; (c) the Defendant entered into a computer screen and the said standard contract for the additional construction works with the victim as evidence for civil action against the victim; (d) copied the column of the contractor of the standard contract for the construction of the G Building with the victim as of August 9, 2012; and (e) copied it to the owner and the contractor column of the building; and (e) attached it to the owner and the contractor column of the standard contract for the additional construction works written at the computer network as of the above.

As a result, the Defendant forged on January 10, 201, which was the name of the victim of a private document on rights and obligations for the purpose of uttering.

B. On December 31, 2013, the Defendant: (a) filed with the Jeonju District Court an additional construction standard agreement; (b) the Jeonju District Court 2013 filed against the victim; and (c) filed an attachment to the written complaint for construction cost 9078.

2. Determination

A. The term “a document forgery” refers to the preparation of a document by a person without authority to prepare a document using the name of another person. Thus, if there was an explicit or implied consent of the nominal owner in the preparation of a private document (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do183, Feb. 24, 1998). In such a case, the use of a forged document premised on a forged document cannot be established.

B. The Defendant, as the husband of F, is an additional construction contract for the issuance of a letter of warranty for the performance of defective repair and the report on the performance of construction work, etc. to H that led on behalf of F in lieu of F.