1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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 for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts and the plaintiff’s assertion is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the reasoning for this decision is cited pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of the

2. As to whether a gift contract, etc. is forged or falsified

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul's testimony at the first instance court witness D, the following facts are as follows: ① The plaintiff's certificate of personal seal impression (Evidence No. 5-3) and the abstract of resident registration card (Evidence No. 5-4) submitted at the time of the application for ownership transfer registration of this case were issued on behalf of the plaintiff by the head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on July 16, 2012 on behalf of the plaintiff as the plaintiff's wife; ② The application for ownership transfer registration of this case was made on August 14, 2012; ② the proxy (Evidence No. 5-2; hereinafter referred to as "the letter of delegation of this case"); and the date of preparation of the letter of delegation submitted at the time (Evidence No. 5-6; hereinafter referred to as "the donation contract of this case") and the seal or seal of the plaintiff who made the application for ownership transfer registration of this case is acknowledged.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the power of attorney of this case and the gift contract of this case were made according to the Plaintiff’s gift intent on each real estate of this case against Defendant B even though they were not directly prepared by the Plaintiff, in view of the basic facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, witness D, and G’s testimony.

The evidence presented by the Plaintiff, such as the facts acknowledged in this subsection and evidence Nos. 10, 16, and 17, cannot be viewed differently.

The Plaintiff’s claim of this case based on the premise that the power of attorney of this case and the contract of donation was forged shall not be accepted.