1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part which is dismissed or added as stated in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

(a) in Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term “Plaintiff” in Part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be changed to “Defendant”;

(b) conduct 7 of the decision of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

7) A witness of the trial at the court of first instance appeared at the date of the second instance, and testified that he would be able to do so before entering into the instant lease contract at around 2010, and that he would have been able to do so at a long time after entering into the instant lease contract. In light of the aforementioned testimony, the Plaintiff appears to have been fully aware of the fact that C entered into the instant lease contract on behalf of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff. (C) On the 8th of the judgment of the court of first instance, “H of the court of first instance.” (d) On the 8th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following is added to “H of the court of first instance.” As alleged by the Plaintiff, as the Defendant had concluded the instant lease contract, the instant lease registration was null and void as a title trust registration under the Real Estate Real Name Act, and thus, the title truster and the title truster were immediately aware of the title truster’s ownership transfer registration under the name of the title truster and the title trustee’s title trustee’s title title title title title 260.