1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After filing an appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the former owner of each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”) used as a bath, and the buildings listed in paragraph (1) are the buildings listed in paragraph (2) “instant 601” and paragraph (2).

B. On April 25, 2011, the Plaintiff prepared with the Defendant a written contract for interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior works contract (Evidence A; hereinafter referred to as “instant construction contract”) with the date of preparation, “the Plaintiff, the contractor, the Defendant,” “the construction period from March 25, 201 to April 25, 2011”, “the construction cost of KRW 209,00,000 (including value-added tax)”, “the construction cost of KRW 20,000,000 out of the construction cost of the instant building, and the payment after the completion of construction work.”

C. In accordance with the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff performed the interior works for each of the instant buildings (hereinafter “instant construction works”). As of September 3, 2012, the calculation of expenses incurred in the instant construction works is KRW 250,854,849 (including value-added tax).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 20, and 28 (Evidence Nos. 1, 20, 28, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), each of the whole pleadings [the defendant raises a defense that the plaintiff's evidence No. 1 was forged by the construction contract of this case (Evidence No. 1).

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the forgery of the construction contract of this case.

Rather, in full view of the evidence No. 8 and evidence No. 11 of this case, in the case where the Defendant forged the written construction contract of this case against the Plaintiff, and then filed a complaint against the Plaintiff by forging private documents or uttering of an investigation document, the government’s prosecutor’s office rendered a non-prosecution disposition against the Plaintiff on May 7, 2013. The Defendant forged and forged private documents, such as preparing the written construction contract of this case without the Defendant’s consent, and filing the written construction contract of this case to the National Bank.