1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for this part of the summary of the case are as follows: (a) except where the court, on January 14, 2015, rendered “Nos. 9 of the first instance judgment No. 2015TTT729” to the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2015TT729 of the first instance judgment on January 16, 2015; and (b) it is identical to the description Nos. 7 through 3, No. 14 of the second instance judgment on January 7, 2015; and (c) thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. C is a person who actually performed excavation works of the hot spring hole in this case with permission for the hot spring hole development business, and actually holds a claim for compensation against the Defendant. Therefore, according to the collection order in this case, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the collection claim amounting to 336,905,135 won and delay damages.

B. Even if the Defendant’s employees promised to pay the Plaintiff the above collection claim even if the Defendant’s compensation claim against the Defendant for household C is not recognized, the Defendant’s employees offered to pay the Plaintiff the above collection claim on or around January 2016, but refused payment by changing their positions on or around January 2016, which is still in violation of the doctrine of notions. Therefore, the Defendant still is obliged

3. Determination

A. The existence of C’s claim for the collection of compensation against the Defendant is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the Plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da38556 Decided December 9, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175 Decided January 11, 2007, etc.). The fact that C installed the hot spring hole of this case with permission to excavate the forest land of this case is as seen earlier. However, in light of the following facts acknowledged by C based on the overall purport of the entries in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 as well as the entire arguments, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that C has the right to compensate for the hot spring hole of this case against the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

1) A certificate of No. 2 (A’s statement of permission) (C) to install the hot spring hole of this case on November 2006.