1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants is modified as follows. A.

Defendant C is 7,000.

1. The reasoning to be stated in this part of the underlying facts is that, excluding the following parts, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it shall be cited by including the summary pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] On the second page of the judgment of the court of first instance, Defendant B shall be used as “Co-Defendant B of the court of first instance” and not more than “Defendant B” shall be used as “Co-Defendant B of the court of first instance.”

The third part of the judgment of the first instance shall be subject to the third part " May 24, 201" as " May 24, 2001."

On the third side of the judgment of the first instance, "the plaintiff and the defendant" in the 14th judgment shall be changed to "the plaintiff and the co-defendant B of the first instance court".

Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "6)" of the defendants in Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be limited to "6) defendants and co-defendant B of the court of first instance."

2. Summary of the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial thoroughly planned to excavate the instant building owned by the Plaintiff and accessed the Plaintiff.

B concluded the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff, and subsequently stolen the instant lease agreement, and tried to lose the Plaintiff as a fraud.

However, there was no intention on the wind of lease contract kept separately by the plaintiff.

B. In the process of this case, Defendant C filed a complaint with the Plaintiff on charges of fraud and fabrication of private document in collusion with the Plaintiff, asserting that “The Plaintiff, “The Plaintiff,” “I would like to take part in Germany upon recommendation of the Embassy staff, I would like to take part in Germany, I would like to take part in Germany,” and that “B forged B’s lease agreement under the name of B.”

In addition, Defendant C filed an application for provisional attachment of the instant building with the claim for damages equivalent to KRW 3,502,000, including the above KRW 50 million and the medical expenses paid in lieu of the Plaintiff, and the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 53,502,00,00, as the preserved claim.