1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party is dismissed in entirety.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows. The Plaintiff’s additional argument is identical to the ground for the judgment of the first instance except for adding up the following “2. Additional determination” as to the assertion added by this court. As such, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The first instance court held that the Plaintiff’s land should be transferred to Defendant B at the time of meeting with the Plaintiff at the time of meeting with the Plaintiff in the related criminal case. The Plaintiff agreed to the transfer of the Plaintiff’s land to Defendant B.

“The statement to the effect that .......... * The Plaintiff’s branch of ................. the Plaintiff met the Plaintiff in the Jeonju prison on May 7, 2012, the Plaintiff was in ......, the Plaintiff (Defendant B) and ..... to ..... to see, “the .......... to .......... to ................., ...................., the Plaintiff did not refuse or refuse to do so.”

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant transferred only the name of the owner on the registration to the Defendant so that the Defendant can conveniently dispose of the real estate in the Plaintiff’s name on behalf of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the legal act between the Plaintiff and the Defendant based on the instant confirmation document is null and void in accordance with Article 108(1) of the Civil Act, as an indication of a

B. It is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a false declaration of conspiracy between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the sole basis of the statement of evidence No. 7 of the judgment of the first instance court as to each real estate indicated in the separate sheet of the judgment of the court of first instance between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, with the intention to transfer only the name of the owner on the registration so that

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

3. Conclusion.