1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 31, 2011, C leased a store under Songpa-gu Seoul E underground (hereinafter “instant store”) from a lessor D to prepare for the business of Thaima branch.

B. On February 24, 2011, the Plaintiff drafted the instant document (Evidence A 1) with the Defendant, which is the Defendant’s father and the agent, stating that “the Plaintiff acquired the instant store from C, and changed the name of the said lease agreement from C to the Plaintiff.”

C. The Plaintiff: (a) transferred the instant store from C to the lessor, and (b) transferred the instant store to the lessor in around 2012. D.

On November 9, 2011, the Defendant reported to the Seoul Song-gu Police Station that “Ahs C was sent on or around June 15, 2011.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff prepared the instant document with the Defendant, who promised to change the name of the lease contract on the instant store in return for the change of the name of the lessee, and requested for the change of name to C due to the change of the lessee’s name. In addition, the Plaintiff did not have any doubt as to the request for change of name (i.e., KRW 15 million (i., KRW 1.5 million, KRW 1.5 million for the premium, KRW 1.5 million for the premium, KRW 7 million for the installation cost, KRW 7 million for the monthly rent, KRW 3.8 million for the two-month rent, KRW 3.5 million for the management fee, KRW 5 million for the five-month period), and thus, sought confirmation that the instant document is false.

B. On the other hand, the lawsuit for confirmation of document authenticity concerns whether the document solely proves the rights or legal relations was prepared by the person under whose name the document was prepared, and thus, the lawsuit for confirmation of whether the content written in the document conforms to objective truth is not allowed (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4710, Feb. 14, 1989), and “legal relations in the lawsuit for confirmation of document authenticity.”