1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be found as a whole in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, 6, 9, and Eul evidence No. 111, with the whole purport of the pleadings.

On October 26, 2009, F, the Plaintiff’s mother, purchased H apartment No. 302 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in the name of the Plaintiff.

B. F, along with D, conspired to borrow money from C by forging a false lease agreement on the apartment of this case with D in a de facto marital relationship.

C. Although F and D did not actually engage in such juristic act on November 6, 2009, F and D prepared a lease agreement stating that the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment from October 18, 2009 to October 18, 201, and received 65 million won as security deposit from D, and obtained the fixed date in the said contract.

On November 20, 2009, F and D made a false statement to the effect that the deposit amount of KRW 44 million is repaid to C as security under the above lease agreement. On the same day, F and D borrowed KRW 44 million from C to C on the same day, and C transferred to C the claim for refund of KRW 52 million out of the deposit amount of KRW 65 million which D had against the Plaintiff, to C, and the Plaintiff prepared and issued a contract for the transfer of the claim that “The refund amount of KRW 52 million out of the deposit amount of KRW 65 million which D had against the Plaintiff, shall be transferred to C, and the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 52 million out of the deposit amount of the deposit amount of KRW 52 million to C.”

E. The contract for the transfer of the above bonds states that the Plaintiff participated as a lessor.

F. On April 13, 2011, C filed a lawsuit against D for the claim for promissory notes with the Incheon District Court Branch Branch of 2011Kadan11933, and on June 29, 2011, C paid KRW 44 million to C by December 31, 2011, and the conciliation was concluded to pay the said amount by adding the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum to the said payment date.

G. C around December 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff and D.