1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), the representative of which is the Defendant, vicariously performed the sale of E-united apartment units to be constructed in Hongsung-gun D. The Plaintiff performed the sale of apartment units from November 16, 2014 to April 15, 2015.

B. On June 4, 2015, the Defendant drafted to the Plaintiff a letter of payment stating the following (hereinafter “instant letter”).

The defendant promises the plaintiff et al. to pay 22,50,000 won (11,700,000 won, the amount to be paid to the plaintiff among them) not later than June 24, 2015, as shown in the attached Form, to pay the plaintiff et al. the total amount of fees not paid from the Hong-gun E Apartment apartment sale model house, and promises to pay the plaintiff et al. to the plaintiff et al. for civil liability later.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the determination of the cause of the claim and the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 11,700,000, and delay damages therefrom, which are agreed to pay through the instant letter, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. First, the defendant asserts that the business fees for the sale of goods to be claimed by the plaintiff can only be claimed to C, but can not be claimed to the defendant, and that the defendant's drafting of the letter of this case was intended to assume an intentional responsibility, and thus, it cannot be claimed to the defendant for payment of money.

In light of the language and text of the letter of this case prepared by the Defendant, it is objectively apparent that the Defendant had the Plaintiff bear the obligation to pay KRW 11,700,000 to the Plaintiff the fees not paid from the Gangseo-gun E Apartment apartment sales model. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

B. Next, the defendant is obligated to pay since two cases were terminated during the plaintiff's pre-sale contract.