1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. On June 30, 2017, comprehensively taking account of the whole arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Standard Subcontract Form, the defendant did not place his/her seal on the above contract, and D, the general secretary of the hospital operated by C and the defendant, voluntarily affixed his/her seal on the above contract, and he/she did not delegate his/her authority to affix his/her seal on the above contract. However, according to the witness E's testimony, the defendant's signature and seal on the above contract can be acknowledged as having been affixed to the above contract) and Eul evidence Nos. 5 (Standard Subcontract Form, which is owned by the defendant, and the main contents are the same as Gap evidence No. 1) and the whole argument as to the cause of the claim, the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff a price of KRW 50 million among the F. K. Medical Hospital D and D Corporation (hereinafter "the Corporation in this case"), and the fact that the plaintiff received KRW 23 million from G from the plaintiff is the person of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 27 million (i.e., KRW 50 million - KRW 23 million) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 2, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint.

2. The Defendant asserts that the instant construction work had already been completed at the time when the Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion opened a herb hospital F, and that C, a partner of the said hospital, was responsible for the instant construction cost between the Defendant and the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

The ground for the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for the payment of the instant construction cost is that the Defendant promised to pay the instant construction cost, and even if C was liable between the Defendant and the Defendant for the payment of the instant construction cost, such circumstance alone is insufficient to accept the Plaintiff’s claim.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion.