1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. pays KRW 315,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's defendant C corporation

1. As to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) on July 1, 2017 with the purpose of database and online information production industry, etc., from Defendant B to the entire first floor of the building underground in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, for the payment of KRW 500 million for the construction cost, and completed the said construction. As to the assertion that Defendant B did not pay KRW 315 million out of the construction cost, it is deemed that Defendant B led to the confession under Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said payment of KRW 315 million.0 million.

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C Co., Ltd.

A. On July 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B for construction (Evidence A No. 3) on the entire first floor of the building underground in Seocho-gu Seoul, under the same construction contract (hereinafter “the construction contract for the Plaintiff’s assertion”). The Plaintiff acquired a lien of KRW 315 million with respect to each real estate of this case as the secured claim on the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction contract, but Defendant C asserted the existence of the above lien, thereby disputing the existence of the above lien.

B. As long as the authenticity of a contract for construction works claimed by the Plaintiff is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated therein, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the content of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da55456, Oct. 11, 1994).