A. On January 11, 2016, the Defendant (Operation B of the manufacture, etc. of the electrical equipment) entered into a subcontract agreement with the Dom Bast Co., Ltd. and the former Panel up to the contract price of KRW 1400,000 (excluding value-added tax) and February 4, 2016, with respect to the production and installation of the former Panel.

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). (b)

Around March 2016, the Plaintiff (a company that engages in the electric material distribution business, etc.) supplied electric materials in connection with the instant subcontract agreement, and issued a tax invoice of KRW 48 million with the value of supply as a person who is supplied with the Defendant on March 31, 2016 and KRW 52,80,000,000 in total, KRW 48 million with the value of supply as a person who is supplied with the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant tax invoice”). C.

Meanwhile, around March 2017, the Plaintiff settled the existing claim for the Plaintiff’s purchase price with C (D’s representative, May 17, 2017).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant settlement agreement”). D.

The Plaintiff did not receive the amount of the tax invoice of this case until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1-11 evidence (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1-5 evidence, part of witness C's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the above acknowledged facts and the evidence as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the party who entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for the supply of electrical materials is the Defendant.

1) The Plaintiff supplied electrical materials in relation to the instant subcontract, which the Defendant is a contracting party, to the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff had been engaged in the transaction of goods separate from the Defendant prior to the said supply.

The Plaintiff received goods from the Defendant without preparing a contract at the time and deposited money into the Defendant’s account, and the Defendant traded in the form of issuing a tax invoice to the Plaintiff.

3. In light of the above circumstances and the contents of the tax invoice of this case, the plaintiff is the defendant of this case.