1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for additional determination under Article 20 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or additionally

[Supplementary or additional parts] The fifth and sixth evidence of the first instance judgment added “No. 49” to the evidence of the first instance judgment.

The fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance paid "the first instance paid", and each of the above lands has been registered as the owner or the provisional disposition holder until now.

The legal principles from 6th to 13th acts in the first instance judgment are as follows.

If the seal imprinted by the holder of a title deed affixed on a private document is affixed with his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established, and once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been established, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the presumption that the authenticity of the seal imprinted is in fact attributable to the holder of the title deed, i.e., the presumption that the act of signing and sealing is attributable to the holder of the title deed. Thus, if a person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprinted proves circumstances that the act of signing and sealing pursuant to the holder of the title deed would result from the intent of the holder of the title deed, the presumption of the authenticity is broken (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59122, Feb. 11, 2003). In such cases, if the person asserts that the so-called act of signing and sealing was conducted by another person other than the preparation, or that it was made without being based on the holder’s’s intent (see, Supreme Court Decision 206.