1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. According to the records on the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on August 24, 2007 after serving a duplicate of the complaint and the notice of date for pleading by public notice, and served the original copy of the judgment on August 30, 2007 to the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on November 7, 2014, within two weeks after the first instance judgment became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice by public notice.

Therefore, since the defendant could not observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to him, the appeal of this case is lawful.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The circumstances of the case are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff requested sale of the multi-family house of the third floor Lin-si Lin-si (hereinafter “the instant house”); (b) M real estate brokerage office operated by the Plaintiff; (c) the Defendant knew that the instant house was sold in lots; and (d) the Defendant, the husband of D, who was the husband of D, knew that the instant house was sold in lots, recommended the purchase of the instant house by stating that “The instant house was sold in lots; and (e) the loan is well known with the head of the bank branch having well known inside the house, and thus, it

Upon the above Defendant’s recommendation, E decided to purchase the instant house in the name of Eul, and the Defendant delegated all the authority of E on the sales contract and the secured loan, etc. of the instant house, and requested G, which is the head of the Gu Light Bank (hereinafter “Korea Light Bank”) I branch office, to lend the instant house as security, and the said G instructed H, who is the employee in charge of the loan, to grant the loan.

Since then, B received the Defendant’s demand, and entered into a sales contract and a lease contract which causes KRW 740,000,000 for the purchase price of the instant housing, into nine copies of the lease contract and the lease deposit, with their own seal affixed thereon, forged the above sales contract and lease contract, and the Defendant entered the above forgery document.