A. On December 29, 2010, A paid investment returns to the plaintiffs, or was not guilty on August 31, 2012 by the court of first instance, and the prosecutor appealeded on August 31, 2012, and was still pending in the appellate trial judgment (Seoul High Court Decision 2012No535, hereinafter referred to as "related criminal case") at the present appellate trial (hereinafter referred to as "related criminal case") in the absence of the intent or ability to transfer Chinese language to the housing, commercial buildings, and other buildings that were constructed for the purpose of sale or lease after completion, which was developed and constructed by the real estate development company for the purpose of sale or lease.

B. A asserted that there was no double sale or offer of goods to others as security in the investigation process related to the relevant criminal case, and submitted a Chinese District Prosecutors' Certificate (Seoul District Prosecutors' Office 2010 type No. 53261 type No. 53261 type No. 496 type 516 type 201 type 201 type 201 type 201 type 35 type 40 type 30 type 30 type 30 type 40 type 20

C. The plaintiffs filed a complaint against A for the crime of forging and utteringing private documents on the ground that A forged the investigation records of the case No. 496 to 516 of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office 2010-type 2010-type 53261, and the investigation records of the case No. 496 to 516-type 516. The Daegu District Prosecutors' Office rendered a disposition on June 30, 2015 that he/she was suspected (Evidence of Evidence) (hereinafter "related complaint cases") (the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office 2015-type 2015-type 357 case; hereinafter "relevant complaint cases"), while, in the case of related complaint cases, the Korea Coast Guard issued the details of the investigation records of the relevant criminal case in the Housing Security and the real estate management country.