The judgment of the first instance is revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

the purport and purpose of the claim;

. Subject to a condition and as the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly invested, the percentage shall be 50/50.

Accordingly, the consultation purchased R in Ocheon million Won and the name of R was A.

In principle, R's real estate is transferred after payment of the purchase price (50 million won), which is 50% of the purchase price (the purchase price (the purchase price) at the time of transfer, to the defendant.

In addition, when the plaintiff wishes to own the R individual to the defendant, the same applies equally to the above matters in consultation with the defendant.

The plaintiff and the defendant are co-property at the time of trade of trade R, and two persons shall enter into an agreement.

In addition, the sale of R is not possible individually by one owner (the plaintiff) (the plaintiff is the original defendant's common property when the sale of RR real property is conducted in consultation with the defendant) and the sale is invalid without consultation.

Under consultation, the sale price shall be 50/50 in common at the time of sale of R's real estate.* The name of R shall be designated and established as one person.

* Conduct with co-property without the establishment of registration of real estate R.

* A certified by notarial act as a document of the above matters and recorded as a co-property in consultation with the original and the defendant.

B) According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 5 (Evidence No. 4) as to the agreement on the “ownership of real estate co-property,” which the Defendant claimed as the secured claim against the instant right to collateral security, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the following (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and the Plaintiff forged the instant agreement.

The fact that the plaintiff's seal imprint affixed on the above letter of agreement was reproduced by the plaintiff's seal imprint is presumed to have been established because there is no dispute between the parties, and once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been established, the authenticity of the above letter is presumed to have been established in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the defendant has the custody of the plaintiff's seal imprint.