1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant C and the defendant B's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant B have arisen.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation in this case is as follows 2. Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "A evidence No. 1 (a written agreement, between Defendant B and without good cause)" shall be as follows; Articles 5, 8, and 6-13 of the court of first instance shall be as "a witness of the court of first instance"; Article 16 of the court of first instance shall be as "14 households"; and Article 420 of the court of first instance shall be as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance, other than adding the judgment as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance with regard to the Plaintiff's argument at the court of first instance, as well as adding the judgment as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The authenticity of the entire agreement is presumed to have been formed, since the part Gap's certificate No. 1 written by it was approved on the date of first pleading of the court of first instance, and the part of his seal affixed to the above agreement was approved on the date of pleading of the court of first instance.

As to this, the above defendant asserts that the confession of the above portion of the stamp image is a clerical error in the statement of the first instance court's pleading, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and on the other hand, even if the purport of the above assertion is to revoke it because the confession of the above portion of the stamp image is contrary to the truth and is caused by mistake, it is difficult to believe that the confession of the above portion of the stamp image is consistent with the truth in light of the result of the appraisal of the stamp image of the party in the trial, and there is no evidence to prove that the confession of the above portion of the stamp image is contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and therefore, the above defendant

Furthermore, the above defendant asserts that the above seal imprint was affixed by the J rather than the above defendant, but it is insufficient to recognize the above argument only with the entries of the evidence Nos. 14-1, 17 and the testimony of the witness S of the first instance trial and the witness of the first instance trial. Rather, according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 4, 7, and 8, and the witness of the first instance trial and the whole testimony and arguments of the witness of the first instance trial, the above defendant cancelled the claim transfer contract and provisional registration.