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

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

A. On September 3, 2013, the Defendant was awarded a sub-subcontract to D (hereinafter “D”) upon receiving sewage for the construction of an ancillary facility, from the Domi Construction Co., Ltd. in the B Urban Multi-Family Housing Site C Corporation. However, at the time, D’s representative director E used the Defendant’s position as the chief of the construction department.

B. On October 10, 2013, the Plaintiff met E with the introduction of the F of the U.S. Construction Co., Ltd. on October 10, 2013; however, the Plaintiff agreed to receive a contract for the film work among the Harsen Construction’s ancillary facilities (hereinafter “instant construction”) at the cost of construction KRW 27 million (excluding value-added tax); and the Plaintiff completed the construction.

C. After having received confirmation from D that there was no objection, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 11 million in total, including KRW 5 million on January 29, 2014, and KRW 55 million on September 17, 2014, and KRW 11 million on September 17, 2014. D paid the Plaintiff KRW 2 million on December 4, 2013 and KRW 1 million on May 22, 2014, respectively.

Written Declarations

1. Name of the enterprise: A;

2. Process name: Artificial engineering work;

3. Contract amount: Amount of 27,00,000 won (supply price, value-added tax of 2,700,000 won): The balance of supply price of 13,00,000,000 won (value-added tax of 1,30,000 won): the defendant's apartment site B/L (value-added tax of 1,40,000 won) under the defendant's promise to receive the balance of the construction price under the condition that he will receive from D, a sub-subcontract in connection with the interior project as an incidental facility of the C/L site for urban apartment site, and not demand the defendant to pay the construction price other than the amount approved, and promise not to impose any civil or criminal liability in connection with this project.

When the defendant pays the last construction price to D, through D on September 24, 2014, he was issued by the plaintiff a letter of undertaking (Evidence No. 3) as follows.

E. After issuing the said letter of undertaking, the Plaintiff is KRW 3 million in total, including KRW 500,000,000 from D as the construction cost of the instant case, KRW 500,000,000 on October 10, 2014, and KRW 2 million on October 17, 2014.