1. The Defendant shall recover the authentic name with respect to the portion of 1,323/4,958 out of C Forest land 4,958 square meters in Jinju-si, Jinju-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 9, 2004, the Plaintiff established and operated a temporary company and a legal church in the name of “Egy” on the ground after completing the registration of ownership transfer based on sale and purchase with respect to C Forest 4,958 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) owned by Jinju-si.

B. On February 13, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 shares out of the instant forest land to F, and F completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 shares to G, his mother on March 2, 2016.

On April 21, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to sell 1,323/4,958 shares, part of the Plaintiff’s shares in H, I, and forest of this case, for KRW 80 million, and received down payment of KRW 20 million on the same day.

C. On May 2, 2016, the Plaintiff drafted a written agreement with the Defendant to delegate the right to operate the instant forest and E company to the Defendant, but to decide on the operation of the inspection, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant written agreement”). After receiving KRW 60 million from the Defendant on June 2, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to H and I, and paid KRW 40 million thereafter. B.

On June 3, 2016, the provisional registration of J Co., Ltd. was cancelled, and on June 3, 2016, the Plaintiff’s share in the instant real estate was terminated.

On June 9, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for shares 1,323/4,958 (hereinafter “instant shares”) among the instant forest land to the Defendant on the grounds of sale on the same date.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 5, Eul's 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts in the above 1., Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 8 (the defendant denies the authenticity of Gap evidence No. 8, but according to the entries in Gap evidence No. 9 and the result of appraiser Eul's seal appraisal, the fact that the seal affixed to Gap evidence No. 8 is the same as the seal affixed to Gap evidence No. 3.