The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

The reasons why our court should explain about this case are as follows: (a) to exclude the addition of the following provisions of Paragraph (2), it is identical to the part concerning the reasons for the judgment of the first instance; and (b) to accept it in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

As to the defendant's assertion of false conspiracy in addition, the plaintiff alleged that C had a claim against C against the defendant (the defendant collected and stored a bill instead of C around February 2005 and claimed payment of KRW 2.10 million,00,000,00,000, which was the obligation to return the deposited money (hereinafter "the claim to return the deposited money of this case"), the defendant is currently claiming that C is not the plaintiff but the right holder of the deposited money of this case. However, the defendant is currently the right holder of the deposited money of this case, but C, including C, intended to make a provisional registration and complete the establishment of a neighboring mortgage registration in his name so that D, which was in dispute with the defendant, could not enforce compulsory execution on the real estate owned by the defendant, and again, C was treated as having transferred the deposited money of this case to the plaintiff only formally in order to establish the right to collateral security under his name, which is his bad credit holder. Thus, the assignment of the claim of this case as a false

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, the original defendant, and C, on Oct. 16, 2006, may recognize the fact that C transferred the claim for return of the deposited money to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant prepared a disposal document with the content that the Defendant did not object to the transfer of the deposited money (hereinafter “transfer certificate of this case”).

As long as a disposition document exists, the court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text of the disposition document unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that denies the contents of the disposition document, and as to the fact that the legal act is a false declaration of conspiracy, the party who asserts it shall bear the burden of proof