1. The Defendant shall jointly and severally with C Co., Ltd. for KRW 205,00,000 and KRW 150,000,000 among them to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 19, 201, Defendant, D, and E entered into a joint agreement with the content that they would develop and sell the instant real estate as a house, etc. after purchasing the instant land from F insified City (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”). B.

Defendant, D, and E entered into a sales contract with F on October 20, 201 under the instant business agreement with the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant first sales contract”), but the said sales contract was rescinded by agreement with F on April 2012.

C. On April 10, 2012, the Defendant decided to purchase the instant real estate again under the name of a stock company with the representative director C (hereinafter “C”), and concluded a sales contract with F on April 10, 2012 (hereinafter “instant secondary sales contract”). However, on July 22, 2013, the Defendant rescinded the said sales contract with F.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 6-1, 10-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. There is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image after the defendant's name stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, and 4 is based on the defendant's seal.

Since the defendant asserts that each of the above cash teas were forged by the plaintiff, it can be acknowledged that the above cash teas were re-written by C's staff H in the computer as it is, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of H, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

However, comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 8 and 9 and the purport of the entire argument in witness H’s testimony, H prepared each cash tea certificate with the permission of the defendant at the time of preparing the above loan certificate, and the defendant forged each of the above cash tea certificate and filed a complaint against the plaintiff for the charge of forging the private document, but the defendant was subject to the disposition of non-performance of evidence.