1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 192,057,429 won with 5% per annum from June 9, 1994 to December 7, 2001.

1. First of all, the judgment on the grounds of evidence defense, the defendant alleged that Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2, and 3-1 were forged, and therefore, the above evidence's authenticity is established.

A. In full view of the purport of the argument as a result of the appraisal of Gap evidence Nos. 17 (a sales contract) and Eul's stamp image and written appraisal of appraiser C, the above sales contract may be established upon delegation from the defendant with regard to the business affairs related to the above sale and purchase, and the part of the defendant's title to prepare the above sales contract and the part of the defendant's written statement of Eul's document No. 1, Eul's document No. 3-2 may be insufficient to accept the above recognition, and there is no counter-proof evidence. Thus, according to the above recognition facts, the above sales contract can be acknowledged.

The defendant's name and seal was not a sales contract, which is the exchange contract brought by the plaintiff, and the above sales contract is alleged to have forged that the plaintiff had the above D's seal impression, but the corresponding statement in No. 3-2 of the evidence No. 3-2 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

B. In full view of the entire purport of the argument as a result of the written appraisal of evidence Nos. 2-1, 2 (Deposit), and 3-1 (Receipt), the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established, since it is recognized that the following stamp image of the above D name of each of the above documents is based on the above D seal, inasmuch as it is recognized that the above D name of each of the above documents is based on the above D seal.

The defendant's seal imprints that the plaintiff has the above D's seal imprints.