1. On October 1, 2009, the defendant claimed KRW 50 million against the plaintiff and about this, the plaintiff claimed the above KRW 50 million in the complaint.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant reported the marriage with C on October 2, 2002, and reported the divorce on June 22, 2009.

B. Around September 2008, C established D and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and the Plaintiff was in office as E’s executive director in around 2009 with the position of E’s executive director.

C. On June 20, 2009, the Defendant made and delivered to the Plaintiff, and on September 30, 2009, a letter of agreement stating “I will promise I, by September 30, 2009, to build a thickness of A (F).” (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million under the agreement in this case and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 1, 2009 to March 21, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint from October 1, 2009, which is the day following the due date, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) The Defendant alleged that the instant agreement was not affixed with the seal affixed to the instant agreement, and left the seal column as a blank. As such, the instant agreement is a document that has not been completed, and thus, is null and void. 2) The instant agreement is a document that is deemed to be authentic when the principal’s signature, seal, or unmanned is affixed (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act), a signature, seal, or unmanned is presumed to be genuine (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act), and only one of the following is sufficient

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da11590 delivered on October 4, 1994, etc.). As seen earlier, since the Defendant written the instant agreement in writing and signed it, the authenticity of the entire instant agreement is recognized, and the Defendant’s signature was recorded in blank without affixing a seal on the instant agreement, the instant agreement is not a complete document.