1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or additional parts] Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "Plaintiff" in Part 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be the "Defendant".

Part 4 of the decision of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

[Attachment, the Plaintiff traded as “G (Representative H)” at the time of the transfer of the instant factory, but the actual operator is B, so there is no dispute with the Defendant as to the fact that the obligee of the cost of the relocation of the factory is the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant asserts that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to pay the cost of the relocation of the factory consistently from February 27, 2019’s written reply from February 27, 2019, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, as it is alleged that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to pay the cost of the relocation of the factory (section 7, July 17, 2018, etc.). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s argument is without merit.”

“The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Plaintiff by asserting that “the representative director I of the Defendant, who was the Plaintiff’s representative director, forged each letter in the name of the Plaintiff, one copy of the real estate lease contract, etc.,” and the said I filed a complaint with the Plaintiff as the forgery of the private document and the uttering of the above investigation document. The Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office approved the Plaintiff’s complainant to use the name of the Plaintiff’s representative director on April 22, 2019, and the J partially reversed the Plaintiff’s statement as to the facts of the preparation of the instant document

"The defendant's representative director, who is the defendant's representative director, was suspected of incompetence of evidence. The issue of this case is whether the person who actually transferred the factory, whether the claim for the relocation expenses of the factory is recognized, and whether the claim belongs to the plaintiff." The witness J of the trial court is the defendant's employee.