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 reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this part of the basic facts is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of the first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment, except for the dismissal of the grounds for recognition as follows.

[Reasons for Recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (the defendant denies the authenticity of the construction contract part of Gap evidence No. 3 as being not the defendant's unmanned, but the authenticity of Gap evidence No. 2 is the same as Gap evidence No. 3, which is acknowledged as the authenticity of Gap evidence No. 3, according to the result of appraisal by the party appraiser No. 3, and since Gap evidence No. 3 is viewed as the defendant, it can be presumed that Gap evidence No. 3 has been actually prepared.

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that the signature of the portion indicated in Gap evidence 3, No. 2, December 29, 2012, 2012, is not the Defendant, but the signature of the additional construction document is also not the Defendant. However, since other data submitted by the Plaintiff were signed using Chinese characters, if the Plaintiff intended to forge the Defendant’s signature, it appears that this part of the signature is in Korean, and considering that the signature of the preparatory document submitted by the Defendant on August 10, 2015 is the same as that of the above additional construction document’s signature, the above signature portion appears to be the Defendant, and therefore, it can be presumed that the additional construction document No. 3 is genuine.

[Judgment of the court below]

2. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is the same as that for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination as to the defendant's assertion

A. On September 29, 2012, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant paid KRW 13,00,000 to the Plaintiff would have repaid the instant construction cost. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion of reimbursement was based on the evidence No. 3.