2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From July 1983 to November 1991, 1991, the Plaintiff was in office as the representative director of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) who is engaged in fume, concrete manufacturing business, etc., and the Plaintiff is in office as the representative director of the Nonparty Company from January 1, 1993 to the present.

B. In accordance with the electricity supply contract concluded around February 1986 (hereinafter “instant contract”), the Defendant supplied high-tension electricity for industrial use to the factory of the non-party company located in Macheon-si (hereinafter “the instant contract”). At present, the Defendant did not receive KRW 35,379,270 (hereinafter “the instant electricity fee”) in total from January 2, 2014 to June 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, 3, Gap evidence 2 through 5, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2, 3, 9, 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Both claims are the cause of the instant claim. The parties who entered into the instant contract with the Plaintiff are the Defendant. The Defendant claimed the payment of the electricity fee and its delay damages against the Defendant, and the Defendant asserted that the parties to the instant contract are the Nonparty Company who actually used the electricity, and claimed the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. According to the above evidence, it is acknowledged that the name and resident registration number of the defendant are entered in the computerized management ledger of the plaintiff's preparation as a customer or user under the contract of this case. Since it is not easy for the plaintiff to arbitrarily search and collect the defendant's resident registration number and store it in the plaintiff's database, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's name and resident registration number stated in the application for electric use of the defendant's name, etc. at the time of the contract of this case were entered in the plaintiff's database as they were electronically entered.

However, on the other hand, each of the above.