1. The plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “2. height”, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Parts in height:

A. The judgment subject to a retrial under Article 451 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act is based on the following: (a) Nos. 15 and 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance were forged.

【The above certificate of the personal seal impression was purchased from the public official in charge and issued by the Plaintiff as if the Plaintiff applied for the issuance of the certificate of the personal seal impression directly. The judgment subject to a review was based on the registration right based on the forged certificate of the personal seal impression, and the fact-finding results on the head of H/Dong, which is the details of the forged certificate of the personal seal impression. As such, this constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451 subparag. 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when documents and other things

B. The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, “There is no submission” in the 19th part of the judgment.

【Direct Submissions, and the Plaintiff does not assert that the registration right certificates adopted as evidence in the judgment subject to review, and the fact-finding results themselves are forged.】

C. The fourth to twenty-one parts of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

3) According to the health section, evidence No. 20-1 and evidence No. 20-2 as to the instant case, the Plaintiff received a written accusation to the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office on December 13, 2018, stating that “F, for the purpose of using it in the registration of transfer of ownership of real estate listed in the separate sheet, has a public official in Hacheon-si Office of the Busan District Public Prosecutors’ Office prepared a false certificate of the seller’s personal seal impression in the name of the Plaintiff, and had a public official under its jurisdiction exercised the forged certificate of the personal seal impression.” However, the Plaintiff is deemed to have only the above facts.