A. On February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the total construction cost of KRW 280 million, including advance payment of KRW 50 million, KRW 50 million, KRW 50 million, and KRW 180 million, and KRW 500,000,000, KRW 5000,000,000, and KRW 500,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s completion of the instant building on June 17, 2015. Since the Defendant received a loan from the Defendant on July 3, 2015 and received a loan from the Defendant to secure the instant building, the Defendant did not have a duty to complete registration of preservation of ownership as to the instant building, and the Defendant did not have a dispute over the construction cost of KRW 500,000,000,00,000 among the maximum construction cost of the instant building and KRW 500,000,000,00,00.

On the other hand, the defendant only concluded the instant construction contract with Gyeongnam-ro Co., Ltd., and argued that there was no conclusion between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and therefore, the defendant constructed the instant building in the response, stating that the plaintiff paid KRW 265 million out of the construction cost of the instant case to the plaintiff. The above written response was stated on the first date for pleading, and confession was made between the plaintiff and the plaintiff as to the fact that the instant construction contract was concluded between the plaintiff. Unless there is any assertion or proof as to the fact that the confession was contrary to the truth and caused mistake, the defendant's confession was against the above confession.