1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants filed a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff, the Defendants, on charges of unlawful uttering, etc. of official documents. The Plaintiff was indicted on the charge of unlawful uttering of official documents by Seoul Eastern District Court 2016DaMa1609, but was acquitted on December 13, 2016.

Although the prosecutor appealed against this, on June 1, 2017, the judgment of dismissal of an appeal (Seoul Eastern District Court 2016No2147) was rendered, and the prosecutor re-appealed against this. However, on November 9, 2017, the above judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive by being sentenced to the judgment of dismissal of an appeal to the Supreme Court (Supreme Court 2017Do9706).

B. In addition, the Defendants filed criminal charges against the Plaintiff on charges of assaulting the Plaintiff and causing property damage, but the Plaintiff received from the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors' Office a non-prosecution decision on December 23, 2015 that there was no right to institute a prosecution against the charge of assaulting the Plaintiff, and a non-prosecution decision on April 8, 2016 that there was a crime against the charge of causing property damage.

C. Defendant B’s spouse D filed a charge of forging a letter of intent with the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff was dismissed by the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office on April 30, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the copy of the Defendant’s resident registration certificate and the copy of the Defendant’s driver’s license to the Defendants through the employees of the certified judicial scrivener office, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff used the rental business operator’s name in the name of the heir for correction in the name of the heir without the Defendants’ consent, and accused the Plaintiff on charges of unlawful uttering of official documents, etc., and even though the Plaintiff did not assault the Defendant C or damage the property under his/her ownership, Defendant C prosecuted the Plaintiff on charges of assault and property damage.

In addition, the defendant B's spouse.