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

A. The Defendant is the owner of Namwon-si C (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On February 15, 2019, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for construction cost of KRW 130 million among the instant land-based hotel construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) from D Co., Ltd. for construction of a new hotel on the ground of the instant land, and performed construction works for installation of a rain system at the instant construction site.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. On April 25, 2019, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant land and the owner of the instant land, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay the construction price of KRW 160 million to the Plaintiff for the said construction work, with the payment in direct payment by May 15, 2019.

The plaintiff, with the consent of the defendant, used the construction work at the construction site of this case to be run by the defendant, so the defendant is obligated to pay the above construction cost of KRW 160 million to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. First, we examine whether the Defendant agreed on April 25, 2019 to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 160,000,000 to the Plaintiff by May 15, 2019.

The defendant asserts that the next stamp image after the name of the defendant, which is indicated in the letter of commitment (No. 2-1 and 2-2 of A), is not based on the seal of the defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that the above stamp image is based on the seal of the defendant.

Even if the above seal is based on the seal of the defendant, there is no evidence to prove that the person who affixed the seal of the defendant on each of the above commitments is entitled to affix the seal of the defendant to E (the second date for pleading of the plaintiff representative director) and E. Thus, each of the above commitments cannot be used as evidence because the authenticity is not recognized, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff KRW 160,000,000 to the plaintiff directly.

(b) furthermore;