1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 16, 2009, the Plaintiff left the Dong Sea Police Station C District as an object to acquire one half.

B. On April 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Korea seeking damages of KRW 1500,000,000,000, asserting that “The Plaintiff reported and handed over two-glomond Bans of two size, which the Plaintiff was aware of as DY750, to the Republic of Korea, and the police officer did not normally handle it,” and filed a lawsuit seeking damages of KRW 150,000,000,000,000.

(hereinafter referred to as “previous lawsuit”). (c)

The chief of the East Sea Police Station submitted a video material to the court's order to submit the documents in the previous lawsuit; the police officer's statement 14; the officer's statement in his service at the time of the plaintiff's declaration of the evidence; the witness's statement in his service and the witness statement in his service at the time of the plaintiff's declaration of the evidence; the police officer's statement that the plaintiff returned the evidence to the plaintiff; the witness's statement in his service; and the certificate in his name.

(hereinafter) Of the documents submitted by the Plaintiff with Gap evidence No. 5 in the previous lawsuit, the confirmation document under the Plaintiff’s name shall be “instant confirmation document” and the remaining documents shall be “police officer’s statement, etc.”). The description form and content of the instant confirmation document are as shown in the attached Form.

On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed against the Plaintiff from the Gangnam Branch Branch of the Chuncheon District Court, and the appellate court claimed that the instant confirmation document is a forged document and applied for a written appraisal.

E. After executing a written appraisal according to the court’s order, Defendant B responded to the result of the appraisal that the penology of the Plaintiff’s signature, sealing, and “E” phone number is the same as the Plaintiff’s signature written in the Plaintiff’s penology or monthly rent contract.

F. The Plaintiff was sentenced to the dismissal of an appeal on July 16, 2014, and the Plaintiff appealed the appeal, but received a judgment dismissing the appeal on October 30, 2014.

(b) the basis for recognition;