1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserted that he had a claim for the payment of the construction cost in the course of the transaction with the defendant, and accordingly, the defendant prepared a letter of confirmation that he would pay the payment of the 2.6 million won on November 24, 2003 by November 28, 2003, and sought against the defendant 26,000,000 won and damages for delay.

In regard to this, the defendant argues to the effect that the obligation to pay for the goods was incurred during the transaction with C and the amount of such obligation is different from the amount claimed by the plaintiff, and that it was offset against the freezing equipment cost ordered by C by C, which is ultimately the fact that the creditor is C.

In light of the following circumstances, it is not sufficient to recognize that the creditor on the above confirmation note is the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the statement on the evidence No. 1 (a verification note) and No. 3-4 is sufficient.

In other words, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, it is revealed that the defendant is a person who operated C in the content certification that seeks the payment of money on the above letter of confirmation(s) to the defendant (s).

According to the statement No. 3 No. 1 and No. 3, the sender of the highest notice demanding payment of money under the above confirmation note to the defendant prepared on Dec. 13, 2003 and the sender of the same purport written on Dec. 10, 2007 is C.

According to Gap evidence No. 3-2, the sender on the notice demanding the payment of money on June 5, 2006, which was written on June 5, 2006, stated the representative director A, and the corporation's seal impression is affixed later.

According to the evidence evidence No. 4, the creditor of the Daejeon District Court 2008Kadan844, the debtor's provisional seizure case of claim No. 2008Kadan844, is C.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff is the creditor of the claim under the above confirmation letter is without merit.