1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. Even if the Defendant’s assertion C forged the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership (a sales contract, transfer of ownership, registration delegation, and sale certificate of State property) with respect to the land of this case in the name of D, there is no evidence to acknowledge that E acquired the buyer’s status by the above forged documents, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of E pertaining to the land of this case was made based on the forged documents, and is a registration of invalidation

B. The documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of this case, which were forged under D’s name (Evidence A(1) through (4) and that were not discovered in the name E.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it can be sufficiently recognized that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of E related to the land of this case has been made by the forged document, and the defendant's above assertion is groundless.

① C is subject to criminal punishment for the crime of forging official documents and the crime of uttering, etc. on the grounds that he/she forged documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership of State property by borrowing or imitateing friendship and name, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership of State property by the State. In view of the fact that the borrowed or imitated name is at least 35 persons including D, the crime was committed over a long time, and the scale and frequency of the crime committed by C, it is anticipated that it is reasonable for those who are not revealed.

② The Plaintiff’s state property E.