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

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the balance of the construction cost of KRW 66,960,000 (=120,000,000 - KRW 53,040,000) and damages for delay.

2. We examine whether the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant’s agent C.

The evidence consistent with the above facts may be proved as Gap evidence, but the document shall be submitted as the original, original, or certified copy pursuant to Article 355 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. If there is a dispute over the existence of the original and the authenticity of the establishment of the original, and if there is an objection against the other party against the other party in regard to the substitution of the original copy, a copy may not be substituted by the original. On the other hand, if a copy is submitted as the original, the copy shall not be an independent documentary evidence, or otherwise, the original shall not be deemed to have been submitted by the independent documentary evidence. In this case, there is no evidence beyond that there is a copy of such content, unless there is any original like the copy by evidence, and the original is deemed to have been duly

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da66133 Decided August 23, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 99Da38224 Decided November 12, 199, etc.). In light of these legal principles, the witness C’s testimony, which seems to be consistent with the Defendant’s argument as to the establishment of the contract, is inconsistent with the fact that the original of the contract was not submitted to the investigation agency (Evidence 7).