1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the part of “1. Basic Facts” in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the relevant part as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2, the correction of "E" in Part 10 to "G Representative E", and the correction of "Seo-gu" in Part 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, to "Seo-gu" in the last 2, 1990, to "Seo-gu, 21, 1990."

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that, after completing the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant commercial building, the Plaintiff, via K, was operating one Council member by selling the instant commercial building, and the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea to the United States after delegated the Defendant, who was the chairman of the Countermeasure Committee, with the duties of lease of the instant commercial building, repayment of collateral security obligations, and registration of site ownership.

In order to manage the above, the Plaintiff left the commercial building of this case after delivering a copy of the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and a copy of the Plaintiff’s certificate. The Defendant, in collusion with the co-defendant C (hereinafter “C”) of the first instance trial, forged documents, such as a sales contract necessary for the registration of ownership transfer, and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the commercial building of this case in the name of C by using a copy of the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression and

Since then, the registration of ownership transfer has been completed to J through I on the commercial building of this case, and the J acquired ownership on the commercial building of this case finally due to the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of the registry, thereby causing losses to the Plaintiff, which would lose ownership on the commercial building of this case.

As above, the defendant transferred the ownership of the commercial building of this case to a third party in an unlawful and unjust manner without performing his/her obligation according to the main text of the delegation contract with the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the plaintiff is the defendant.