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

A. The Plaintiff was the co-owner of the apartment C (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On August 21, 2008, the Defendant Limited Company B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) forged the Plaintiff’s seal imprint and applied for the alteration of the name of the owner of the instant apartment from “Plaintiff, etc.” to “Defendant B, etc.”, and the Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province neglected to exercise due diligence even though it could have known that the name of the Plaintiff was stolen if he paid little attention, and allowed the Defendant B to change the name of the owner of the said apartment.

Due to the Defendants’ act, the Plaintiff did not acquire the ownership of the above apartment, which should be acquired as the owner of the building, and thus, is obligated to compensate for the damages.

B. The name of the owner is changed under Defendant B’s consent or instruction.

C. Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province is deemed to be identical to the application for change of name and the certificate of change of name of the owner, including the Plaintiff attached thereto, and it cannot be deemed that there was negligence on the part of the public official in charge of the process. Moreover, even if there was domestic negligence, the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages has expired.

2. The judgment is based on the evidence that Defendant B forged the Plaintiff’s seal imprint and changed the name of the owner. However, although the evidence No. 13 appears to be consistent with the fact that Defendant B forged the Plaintiff’s seal imprint, it is difficult to believe it in light of the description of evidence No. 13, and it is insufficient to recognize the forgery of a seal imprint solely with the description of evidence No. 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without any need to further examine.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.