2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant should pay the color expenses of KRW 14,322,570 for the plaintiff's building as stipulated in the agreement of this case (hereinafter "the color expenses of this case") jointly with the defendant C, because the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case with the co-defendant, but the lawsuit with C was terminated in accordance with the settlement recommendation decision dated June 14, 2017 by the court of first instance that "the plaintiff waives his claim against C," while the lawsuit of this case was pending in the court of first instance. The defendant did not prepare the agreement of this case, and the defendant unilaterally prepared the agreement of this case at C, and as a party to the agreement of this case, C should bear the color expenses of this case entirely.3.

A. 1) Whether the authenticity of the instant agreement is established or not, i.e., the authenticity of the signature, unless there are any special circumstances, if the signature affixed to the document is withdrawn by his seal, the authenticity of the document shall be presumed to have been formed, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person under whose name the document was prepared. On the other hand, if the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been completed, the document shall be presumed to have been authentic. However, if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the person under whose name the document was prepared, the document presenter shall be responsible for proving that the act of affixing the seal is based on the legitimate title delegated by the person under whose name the document was prepared (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69686, Apr. 8, 2003). The instant agreement (No. 1 and No. 14) is written as the subject of the instant agreement, and the fact that the seal affixed to the director of the Corporation (hereinafter referred to the “Director”).