2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On December 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for a funeral work of KRW 33,00,000,000 and issued the tax invoice accordingly to the Defendant on December 31, 2014. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said construction cost of KRW 33,00,000 and delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant did not enter into a contract for the construction works equivalent to KRW 33,00,000 with the Plaintiff, and the said tax invoice is merely a data received from D for the Defendant’s payment of operating expenses to D and subsequent taxation processing.

2. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the Plaintiff, on December 31, 2014, issued a sales tax invoice of KRW 33,000,000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) with items written to the Defendant as “other than a construction site,” but it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff completed the construction work by being awarded a contract with the Defendant on December 31, 2014, for the construction cost of KRW 33,00,000,000 for construction cost, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, the following circumstances revealed by the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4 and 1 evidence Nos. 4 and 1, namely, (i) D, while serving as the Plaintiff’s employee from Jun. 2014 to Apr. 2015; (ii) was indicted due to the fact that the Plaintiff embezzled the proceeds of subcontracted construction works from E from the Busan District Court on Nov. 10, 2017; and (iii) was sentenced to a sentence of two-year suspension of execution from Oct. 10, 2017 (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Da5818); and (iv) the Plaintiff’s attorney stated that the Plaintiff’s attorney was not the Defendant, but the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for construction works from E., the instant tax invoice issued to E.