1. The Defendant’s KRW 96,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual amount from February 22, 2019 to May 31, 2019, and the following.

1. Recognizing the same facts as the entry in the list of the reasons for the claim.

[Ground for recognition] Facts that do not clearly dispute

2. Grounds for determining that the defendant did not clearly dispute

A. In a case where the defendant who did not clearly dispute the plaintiff's assertion of the relevant legal principles and lost the admission as the admission of the plaintiff in the appellate court only sought a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim, but did not state any reply as to the facts alleged as the cause of the claim, the appellate court shall be deemed to have established the admission of the confession in the appellate court, unless it is acknowledged that it

(See Supreme Court Decision 4288Da59 Decided July 21, 1955, Supreme Court Decision 4290Da147 Decided October 14, 1957, and Supreme Court Decision 89Da4045 Decided July 25, 1989, etc.). Such a legal doctrine shall be deemed equally applicable in cases where the Defendant did not make any statement concerning the fact that the Plaintiff asserted as the cause of the claim in the first instance trial.

If the Defendant did not state any reply as to the facts alleged by the Plaintiff as the cause of the claim while seeking a ruling of dismissing the claim to the purport of the reply, it cannot be interpreted that the Defendant asserts the facts in favor of the purport of the entire pleadings

C. See, e.g., C., the Civil Procedure Act (2), No. 8, 448.

In the case of this case, the previous attorney of the defendant submitted a written answer, and the defendant sought to dismiss the claim of this case, but only stated that "the response to the cause of the claim will be submitted later as a preparatory document," and did not answer to the cause of the claim.

Furthermore, the defendant's previous attorney did not submit any other document except the above written reply before his resignation.

Even when the defendant has been legally served a notice of the date for pleading, he was not present at all on the first date for pleading and the second date for pleading that has been closed, and the pleading shall be closed.