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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On February 27, 2013, the Defendant prepared a written confirmation (hereinafter “instant written confirmation”) stating that “The Plaintiff promised to remit KRW 5,831,860 to the national bank account (C) in the name of the Plaintiff” (hereinafter “instant confirmation”).

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation to the Defendant that “D Apartment 203, 2,422,880 won for transfer of registration, 2,272,680 won for provisional registration, and 5,831,860 won for payment in kind, 550,90 won for provisional registration, and 495,200 won for provisional registration, including the following: (a) 1/2 is true; (b) E, 1/2 is the E, 1/2 is the F, and C, of the National Bank; and (c) was signed by F as the guarantor in the said written confirmation.

C. On February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff revoked the execution of the provisional registration of the Plaintiff’s right to claim for transfer registration of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff, which was established regarding No. 203, and the provisional registration was revoked on March 5, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay 5,831,860 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement in the letter of confirmation of this case.

(1) The defendant argues that the confirmation document of this case is not issued to the plaintiff, but merely a document that the plaintiff prepared and signed and demanded confirmation to the defendant. However, as long as the defendant confirmed the above contents of the confirmation and directly signed it, the legal effect of the confirmation shall be effective. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The defendant's claim against the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case should be dismissed, since the plaintiff did not destroy the certificate of this case and completed the new letter of confirmation on February 28, 2013, although the defendant prepared a new letter of confirmation by agreement with the plaintiff and agreed to destroy the existing letter of confirmation, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be dismissed.