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. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On March 28, 2011, C: (a) On March 28, 201, the construction of a new neighborhood living facility DD (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(2) On April 6, 2011, the Defendant contracted the instant construction to E, a corporation run by F, and the Plaintiff is the subcontractor of the instant construction. (2) The Plaintiff exercised a lien at the instant construction site as the Plaintiff did not pay the construction cost despite the completion of the subcontracted construction. As such, the Defendant, on December 3, 2011, prepared a written confirmation of non-performance of the construction order stating that “I, as of December 3, 2011, hold a lien for KRW 20 million from the remainder of the instant construction and would be responsible to the Plaintiff to leave the owner and pay KRW 30 million to the owner immediately after receiving the balance of the construction (No. 4, the Defendant asserted that it was a forged document for the instant lawsuit, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the said assertion).”

3) As of May 8, 2012, the Defendant’s letter of payment stating “F, B (Defendant); each signature of HH: The amount of the construction work at Osan-si: this0 million won, the remainder of the construction work cost will be paid first to the Plaintiff on June 5, 2012 at the time of the completion of the construction of the J commercial building, I, as well as I, at the time of the completion of the construction work and the settlement of the remainder of the construction cost, I, at the end of June 5, 2012, enter into an agreement with the Plaintiff as “W.” (Evidence A; hereinafter referred to as “instant letter of payment”).

Although the Defendant recognized the signature portion of “Confirmation Party B” but argued that the signature portion of “W” signature of the upper order was forged, there is no evidence to acknowledge the allegation, and it is difficult to deem that the authenticity of the above payment angle is denied solely on the sole basis that the Defendant asserts.

(4) On the other hand, the Defendant, other than the instant construction, subcontracted to F and delayed payment of the price to F, even if the JNND construction works were to be undertaken by the Defendant, and the Defendant, on June 2012, shall J. 200.