1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff in relation to the defendant who is ordered to pay below.

1. The facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 8 (including serial numbers), and the purport of the entire arguments as to the co-defendant B of the first instance trial.

B was appointed as a public official on January 17, 1997 and worked with the Defendant’s C until September 9, 2012, and was in charge of the inspection results, the inspection of cadastral records, and the adjustment of cadastral records, etc., and was deemed to have been damaged by a stock investment. As a result, the B, by forging relevant documents, such as “public notice of public property sale”, “a loan contract for State property (or a provisional contract for real estate sale, a loan application for State property loan, and a loan purchase for State property)” by forging the relevant documents with a status of a public official, i.e.,

B. B displayed several times from April 201 to June 2011, the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Defendant 3, 9,521 square meters in Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-gun, the neighboring area of the Gyeongcheon-do Office prior to the relocation of the Gyeongcheon-do Office, and each land of 17,851 square meters in richeon-do (hereinafter “each land of this case”) or verified the existence of military maintenance by indicating the basic facts of each piece of land of this case, or indicating the fact that “I would be able to obtain 100 million won later in ri-do, i.e., to receive Gun maintenance,” and then withdrawn money from the Plaintiff on August 3, 2011 to the Defendant’s account (the account number of 787-01-0820, 20820, hereinafter “instant account”) in the name of the Defendant using the revenue management account for the charge for the issuance of the Defendant’s civil petition.

(hereinafter “instant tort”). C.

B with a similar method to the tort of this case, the sum of 5.72 billion won from 26 victims, including the Plaintiff, including the victim, for six years.