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. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this case by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Defendant asserts, even in the trial, that “consulting fee for forest recovery costs” is not a guarantee letter for the payment of the existing mountainous district recovery cost, but a payment guarantee for additional payment guarantee (not later than December 31, 2016) (in the instant agreement, the guarantee amount of KRW 2,624,497,00, and the guarantee amount of KRW 2,000). However, the instant agreement does not state any indication on the issuance of the guarantee certificate for the payment guarantee for the additional forest recovery cost claimed by the Defendant; rather, the term of validity for the payment guarantee for forest recovery costs is specified only as of December 31, 2015, which is the existing guarantee period; the said guarantee certificate is issued as a substitute for the payment guarantee; the contract bond is not attributed to the Defendant unless the contract is cancelled due to the contractor’s fault (Articles 5 and 34(1) of the General Conditions for the Standard Construction Contract attached to the instant agreement). In the event of cancellation, the Plaintiff could recover the payment guarantee, and it appears to have been normal (the Plaintiff’s submission of the construction contract is difficult by reason attributable to the Plaintiff.

(2) Meanwhile, in light of the above legal principles as to the probative value of a disposition document that requires the existence and content of a declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the statement is denied, in addition to the above legal principles as to the probative value of the disposition document that the existence of a declaration of intent and its content should be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da34666, Sept. 6, 2002), it is reasonable to view the above KRW 130 million as payment guarantee for the existing mountainous district recovery expenses, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is reasonable.