Defendant and D, E, F, and G (hereinafter referred to as “D, etc.”) are between siblings with H and I’s own consciousness.

Around October 10, 2003, the Defendant drafted with D, etc., a letter to the effect that “I will not raise any objection to the gift of H, K, L, and M land to the Defendant” (hereinafter “each letter”), and instead, with the consent of D, etc., signed and sealed it. A notary public obtained a certification from the “Supplementary” law firm around October 20, 2003. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17817, Oct. 20, 2003>

1. The Defendant at the bottom of the main text of the foregoing investigation document was written as follows: “D shall transfer the registration of Jin-gun N land to the Defendant on condition that D will fully repay H’s guarantee and debt to the Defendant, despite the fact that D had not agreed to give the Defendant a donation of Nin land in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.”

On August 8, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the victim for the registration of transfer of ownership of the above land at the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court, Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court, which is located in 4-24, Seosan-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do, and exercised the above document by submitting it as evidentiary materials to the employees of the above court who are not aware of the forged circumstances.

2. On August 8, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit to the effect that, “Around October 10, 2003, the Daejeon District Court rendered an agreement with the victim D on the transfer of ownership as stated in the paragraph (a) in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court located in Seocheon-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do, 4-24, and that, on February 26, 2010, the Defendant fulfilled all of the obligations owed by HH to Myeoncheon-do, Myeoncheon-do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant fulfilled the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership on the NY 2562.8 square meters as stated in paragraph (a).

However, in fact, the victim did not have entered into an agreement on the transfer of ownership between the defendant and the victim, so the victim did not have a duty to complete the registration procedure on the transfer of ownership.

Defendant 2.