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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Defendant ordered C to contract E oriental medical hospital interior works in Nam-gu, Gwangju. The Plaintiff received a subcontract for construction waste disposal process from C during the construction work, and performed the construction waste disposal process from January 16, 2017 to April 5, 2017. On May 24, 2017, the Defendant issued a trading list claiming C to pay KRW 6,540,000 for price.

B. Around May 18, 2017, the Defendant opened a hospital for oriental medicine.

C. C prepared a written consent to the payment of subcontract price in favor of the subcontractor to the effect that “The currently attempted amount is KRW 6,540,000 for the construction waste disposal process, and the subcontractor agrees to pay the subcontractor the price for the part executed by the subcontractor directly.” D.

On June 27, 2017, the Defendant drafted a standard subcontract agreement on construction works stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay the outstanding amount on July 30, 2017 to the Plaintiff KRW 6,540,000” to the said construction page treatment process.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (A's Standard Subcontract for Construction Works) (this refers to the "original contractor" column of the defendant's name, and the defendant's identity is recognized as being affixed with the defendant's name. Thus, the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to be established. In a case where the seal affixed to a document is recognized as being affixed with the seal affixed to the name holder's name, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the act of affixing the seal was conducted based on the name holder's will, and once the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established, it is presumed that the document was signed in accordance with Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the person who asserts that the document was forged is presumed to have been affixed against the name holder's will, and thus, it is necessary to prove that the document was forged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72029, Feb. 5, 2002).