2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On August 29, 2007, Defendant Company, a corporation operating automobile transport business, concluded a land entry agreement with C on D truck (hereinafter “instant truck”) with C as a landowner.

B. E, who worked as an auditor of the Defendant Company, was in charge of managing rolling stock, has forged an entrustment contract for rolling stock management to pay personal debts, provided rolling stock to the financial company as collateral, and received a loan. In the following manner, E was loaned KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff Company.

1) On January 30, 2012, E forged an entrustment contract under the name of the Defendant Company and delivered it to the Plaintiff Company, as if it was concluded between the Defendant Company and E on January 30, 2012, E received a loan of KRW 15,00,000 from the Plaintiff Company, and delivered the Plaintiff Company an application for registration of mortgage and a mortgage creation contract in the name of the Defendant Company. On February 1, 2012, E issued the Plaintiff Company with respect to the instant truck on February 1, 2012 according to the written application for registration of mortgage creation and the mortgage creation contract.

C. On November 24, 2014, E was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for six months of imprisonment due to the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering of an investigation document on an entrustment contract for the management of the said land at the Chuncheon District Court (2014dan658, 820). The judgment became final and conclusive on December 2, 2014.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion E is that the Defendant Company is in charge of managing the land-based vehicles of the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company forged the Plaintiff as if the Plaintiff Company was a land owner of the instant truck.