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 reasons why this Court shall explain this part of the facts are with respect to the ruling of the court of first instance that "W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W of W

Inasmuch as the part of paragraph (1) is the same as the part of "1. Fact finding" on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following modifications:

I. On June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff made an agreement with the Defendant on June 27, 2013, through which the Defendant represented by the Defendant that “the Plaintiff sold or transferred the right to permission and deposit under the name of K, I, J, and V land, and the ownership of V land is transferred to the Defendant, but if the Plaintiff sells it in the purchase price of KRW 1.3 billion, it shall be paid by the Defendant (hereinafter “the first agreement”).

In the process of negotiations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the payment of remuneration, the letter of undertaking on November 30, 2014, stating that “the Defendant shall pay KRW 90 million to the Plaintiff by January 20, 2015 (hereinafter “instant letter of undertaking”) was prepared, and the said letter of undertaking signed by the Defendant’s president Z and six heads, who are members of the Defendant planning committee.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the agreement under the instant undertaking is constituted is based on the agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant under the instant undertaking through Y delegated by the Defendant with the authority to reach an agreement on remuneration with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “second agreement”).

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay remuneration of KRW 90 million and damages for delay. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that since members of the Planning Committee, including AA, who were not authorized by the Defendant, prepared the instant commitment, the said commitment has no effect on the Defendant as a document prepared by a non-authorized person. 2)