1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as set forth below 2. Thus, this case is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is dismissed or added, is dismissed as follows: “The previous registration of ownership transfer has been completed” in 6th part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The second part of the judgment of the first instance is to add "the sales contract (A)" (hereinafter "the contract of this case") after the second part of the judgment of the first instance.

The grounds of the first instance judgment are as follows.

2.Paragraph d(5)(2)(5)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(5)(2)(2)(2)(5)(2)(2

【. The Plaintiff, on May 16, 2012, written confirmation under the special agreement of the Plaintiff (No. 1; hereinafter “instant confirmation”).

The G’s seal imprint affixed to the G is forged, and there is no fact that the power of representation was granted to the I in charge of the preparation of the said letter, so the instant letter of confirmation is invalid.

According to the statement of No. 1, the fact that the letter "J" is somewhat different from the trade name is recognized in the G's seal affixed to the letter of confirmation of this case.

However, in full view of the statements in Eul evidence No. 8 and the testimony of H of the first instance trial, the plaintiff et al. conferred comprehensive power of representation to I for the sale and purchase of the land of this case, and I for the preparation of the confirmation document of this case including the extension of the remaining payment date upon delegation, it can be recognized that the seals of G are affixed and sealed to I for the purpose of preparing the confirmation document of this case.

Therefore, G’s seal affixed to the instant certificate is inconsistent with the corporate seal imprint certificate.

Even if the seal imprints or somewhat different letters from the trade name, so long as the document was written pursuant to the delegation by the plaintiff et al., it cannot be deemed that the document was forged, and the certificate of this case also remains effective for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.