1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserts that, with respect to the Plaintiff and the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”)’s establishment of the benefit of confirmation, there was no pre-sale agreement (Evidence A; hereinafter “instant pre-sale agreement”) signed on February 6, 2010 between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the deceased C (hereinafter “the real estate”). Since the Defendant, etc., who is his/her father, has forged it and submitted for compulsory sale of the real estate in this case, thereby endangering the Plaintiff’s legal status, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the pre-sale agreement. Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “A lawsuit for confirmation may be brought in order to determine whether the document verifying legal relations is authentic,” a document that directly proves legal relations, and the “written document proving legal relations” refers to a document that directly proves the present legal relationship from the content of the document that can directly prove the existence or absence of a certain legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29405, Jun. 29, 2007).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53714 Decided December 14, 2001). Regarding the instant case, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff against F, who acquired the instant real estate from the Plaintiff on the grounds of the termination of the lease agreement under the instant lease agreement, and the Seoul Northern District Court rendered a final judgment to return the unpaid lease deposit KRW 27 million on February 7, 2013.