1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

3. 4 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, with the trade name of “F”, operated concrete products and cement products manufacturing and wholesale retail business, traded with H by the actual operator of “G” from around 2007.

B. In the process of the transaction at issue, the issuer: (a) around August 19, 2014; (b) the Plaintiff, the addressee: G; (c) the face value: KRW 31.7 million; and (d) the due date: November 10, 2014; (b) the Promissory Notes withdrawn KRW 15 million from the L Union’s account on October 31, 2014; and (c) the said money was issued in 15 copies of the check of KRW 1 million (the check number M-N; hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant check”); and (d) around November 10, 2014, H traded traded two times with the Plaintiff’s I Bank account, including transfer of KRW 167 million and KRW 15 million.

C. After that, around November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with H to sell the vehicles listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) to H in the amount of KRW 29 million (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and entered into a sales contract with the buyer as Defendant B, the wife, and entered into the sales contract with the buyer as Defendant B on December 4, 2014. On December 17, 2014, the ownership transfer registration for the instant vehicle was completed upon receipt of Gwangju as to the instant vehicle, and on the 1% portion of the instant vehicle, the ownership transfer registration was completed with Defendant C as the receipt of the instant vehicle at the time of Gwangju, thereby registering the ownership transfer registration as the joint ownership name of the Defendants.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 [including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply] [the plaintiff claims that the J, which was an employee of the plaintiff, issued the plaintiff's bill of promise No. 7 using the plaintiff's seal without permission, but the court's testimony and statement No. 15 in the evidence No. 15] are recognized by the whole purport of the pleading. In particular, the court below's