1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, except for the following advanced portions, and thus, citing the reasoning of this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article

▣ 제1심판결문 제6쪽 이 사건 합의 제5항 중 ‘50,300,0000원’을 ‘50,300,000원’으로 고침 ▣ 제1심판결문 제8쪽 3행 ‘4,255,000,0000원’을 ‘4,255,000,000원’으로 고침 ▣ 제1심판결문 제9쪽 아래에서 6행 ‘2011. 11. 14.경’을 ‘2012. 11. 14.경’으로 고침

2. Judgment on the appellate court’s argument

A. The plaintiff asserts that the authenticity of Gap evidence 9-4 should be recognized even in this court, that although Gap evidence 9-4 (hereinafter referred to as the "written confirmation of this case") is a copy, the existence of the original copy and the authenticity should be recognized, the authenticity of the written confirmation of this case should be recognized.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, including Gap evidence Nos. 8, 26, 32, 34, 36, 41, and 46 (including a serial number) in light of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that the original of the instant confirmation document exists and that the original was duly formed, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

① The Plaintiff, while disputing the authenticity of the instant confirmation document, failed to submit the original document from the first instance court to the court, even though the Defendants demanded the submission of the original document, and failed to prove the specific grounds for justifying the non-submission of the original document.

On the date of the conclusion of each contract of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff could not submit the confirmation document of this case as Defendant B and Defendant B, while the Plaintiff and Defendant B affixed their seals and kept one copy respectively, that the Plaintiff would have brought the original copy of the said confirmation document kept by the Plaintiff.