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

A. On October 15, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and paid KRW 125 million to the Defendant around that time.

B. However, the auction procedure was in progress with respect to the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff received only KRW 87,219,929 out of the lease deposit at the above auction procedure, and the Defendant is liable to pay the remainder of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff and damages for delay.

2. Determination

(a) In case the other party contests the formation of a private document, the presenter shall prove it;

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da31549 delivered on November 8, 1994, etc.). B.

As to the instant case, the Defendant denied the Defendant’s seal affixed on the lease agreement (No. 1) on the instant real estate on the second date for pleading, and it is insufficient to recognize that the remainder of the Plaintiff’s submission and the testimony of the witness D alone are by the Defendant’s seal, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

C. Thus, the above lease contract cannot be used as evidence since its authenticity is not recognized, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the lease contract of this case with the defendant was legally constituted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.