1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. The plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following additional determination items (2) after the fourth 21 of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition, the defendant prepared the letter of this case between the defendant and Seongdong-si fishery, and received a loan from Seongdong-si fishery, and paid the construction cost to the defendant, but there was an agreement that if Seongdong-si fishery did not pay the construction cost, it would invalidate the letter of this case. Accordingly, the defendant prepared and executed the letter of this case, which constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy, and thus, the letter of this case is invalid.

As the defendant asserts, it is not sufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the defendant and Seongdong Farming Fishery to invalidate the letter of this case in the absence of the payment of the construction cost, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Finally, the defendant asserts that the letter of this case is written by E, not the representative of the defendant, and the seal affixed to each letter of this case is not a registered corporate seal of the defendant, and that each letter of this case is invalid.

In light of the records, it is apparent that the Defendant was a person who prepared a preparatory document as of April 14, 2015 and prepared by the Defendant. In order to revoke the confession, the Defendant’s confession is against the truth and proves that the confession was caused by mistake (proviso of Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act). The confession is not presumed to be a confession due to mistake solely on the ground that the confession was proved to be contrary to the truth (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994).