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 court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s additional determination is different from the Plaintiff’s stamp image affixed to C’s receipt (No. 1-2) and the seller’s stamp image affixed to C’s registration right certificate (No. 2) affixed to C’s sales contract (No. 1-1) submitted by the Defendant. In light of the difference between C’s penology stated in the above sales contract and C’s penology stated in the above receipt, the above sales contract is deemed a sales contract made in a false manner. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the registration completed with respect to the real estate before the instant partition under the Defendant’s name is revoked based on a false sales contract.

However, it is insufficient to recognize that a sales contract (No. 1-1) prepared between C and the Defendant solely on the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff was forged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Even if there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the stamp image and the pen image of C affixed on the above sales contract are different from the stamp image and the pen image of the above receipt and the above registration right certificate.

Even if the receipt (No. 2) prepared by the purchaser as the defendant and the seal affixed on the registration certificate of the real estate before the division of this case appears to be similar to the land surface. In light of the above sales contract and the above registration certificate, C’s penology stated in the above registration certificate appears to be similar to the land surface, the presumption of ownership transfer registration of the Defendant’s name concerning the real estate before the division of this case cannot be deemed to have been reversed merely because the sales contract was forged merely because the Plaintiff asserted, and the above registration certificate of ownership transfer cannot be deemed to have been made based on a false letter of guarantee or confirmation, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.