A. From October 2010, the Plaintiff engaged in the secondhand car sales business with the trade name “E” in macro-si D.

F was involved in the above middle and high-speed trading business since April 2014 when the Plaintiff was working at a middle and high-speed trading business site operated by the Plaintiff.

B. On November 2014, the Plaintiff decided to move the place of business to Gri-ri’s land as a result of the termination of a lease agreement with an existing medium-sized shop.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and F, on December 11, 2014, purchased H 793 square meters, I 818 square meters, J 127 square meters, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as a co-ownership of each 1/2 equity share. On December 17, 2014, the Plaintiff and F, on December 17, 2014, combined the said three lots of land with H 1,738 square meters.

(B) On July 3, 2015, the land above was the H 1,730 square meters, following the division and land category change. The land above was the land above 1,730 square meters; hereinafter referred to as “H land before division” in total after the division.

On June 2015, the Plaintiff and F have moved their business place to the H land before the division. D.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff and F shared 1/2 shares on September 3, 2015, H land was divided into H 692 square meters and K 1,038 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); and F, through Defendant B through Defendant B through a certified judicial scrivener on September 14, 2015, completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name on the ground of a partition of co-owned property as of the Plaintiff’s 1/2 shares among the instant land via Defendant B through the certified judicial scrivener on September 14, 2015.

At the time, F forged the agreement on partition of co-owned property as to H land before the division under the Plaintiff’s name and delivered it to the Defendants. Although the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression attached was not issued by the Plaintiff himself, the Defendants misleads the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was issued with the abstract of the Plaintiff’s resident registration card issued by the Plaintiff, and did not directly confirm the Plaintiff’s delegated intent or intent of partition of co-owned property.