1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts to be filled or added below, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 5th 1st 2th 1st 2th 1st 2th 1st 2th 2th 2th 3th 3th 2th 20

The written evidence Nos. 6 and 7 (including paper numbers) alone is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

At the fifth bottom of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

In addition, 220,000,000, which the Plaintiff asserted that he had paid to B and C, is a little amount of money as at the time of 1998, and the Plaintiff can prove that the Plaintiff had paid the above sales amount by the method of indicating how B and C had used it, but did not submit any data therefor.

The following shall be added to 6 pages 8 of the judgment of the first instance.

As a result of the appraisal by the appraiser F of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant sales contract was drafted at the time of October 1998 by the Plaintiff purchased the forest land of this case, since it was judged that the instant sales contract was not later fabricated or prepared.

According to the results of appraisal by appraiser F of the first instance trial, it is recognized that the sales contract of this case was prepared in the past in light of the state of reaction of melting damage by excessive rain, changes in geological features, inspection of out-of-the-counter vessels, etc.

However, when the defendant requested a high-tech tax evasion officer of Seoul regional tax office to appraise the sales contract of this case, it was confirmed that the sales contract of this case is likely to have been prepared ex post facto as a result of the appraisal of the excessive and paper ingredients of the contract by using a gaseousroman, a mass importer and a son electronic microscope, and the appraisal by the appraiser F.