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 court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendant asserts that, on September 23, 2004, when he saw F as F on September 23, 2004 at the police station, he first viewed E work and affixed a blank delegation seal to F for the collection of credit against F, and that, unlike the intention delegated by E, the Defendant forged A’s claim transfer and takeover contract under the evidence No. 4.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 8, and 13 and the entire arguments, i.e., the date on which the contract for the transfer and takeover of bonds was prepared, (i) not only the defendant's certificate of personal seal impression issued on December 31, 2008 but also the defendant's license and completion certificate issued on November 24, 2008, and (ii) unlike the defendant's assertion, the contract for the transfer and takeover of bonds seems to have been prepared on December 2008. (iii) other than the plaintiffs, the defendant has a driver's license, a copy of resident registration certificate, a photograph, and two copies of the above documents. (iv) The defendant took the defendant's temporary release from the defendant due to the strong pressure of the E behavior. However, the defendant did not take any measure and issued the defendant's certificate of personal seal impression issued on February 27, 2009, and it seems to be difficult for the defendant to prove the defendant's personal identity.

Therefore, the defendant.