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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion on March 11, 2015, the Defendant: (a) drafted a letter of commitment by the consumers of electricity to the effect that the Plaintiff, as the actual electricity user of Heung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B (hereinafter “instant factory”) is liable to pay electricity charges; and (b) drafted a certificate, etc. of the consumers of electricity to the same effect thereafter.

However, as the Plaintiff supplied electricity to the Defendant during the period from July 2015 to November 2015, 2015, and did not receive a total of 74,694,740 won from the Defendant, the Defendant is liable to pay the said usage fee to the Plaintiff as a contracting party and the principal debtor. Even if it does not do so, the Plaintiff is liable to pay the said usage fee as a guarantor, since it has prepared the said letter of undertaking, etc. as a guarantee meaning.

B. Determination 1) First of all, as to whether the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid user fee to the Plaintiff as the contracting party or the principal debtor, it is insufficient to recognize the unpaid user fee only with Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7 (including each number), and witness evidence Eul's testimony. Rather, considering the overall purport of the arguments in each of Gap evidence 1 through 3, and Gap evidence 9, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with D Co., Ltd. on March 18, 2010 and supplied electricity to the above company, and supplied electricity to the above company on January 19, 2011 (hereinafter "E"). < Amended by Act No. 1054, Jan. 19, 2011>

로 상호를 변경한 후 원고에게 그 사실을 통지하여 원고가 2012. 4. 20. 위 계약의 상대방을 E로 변경한 사실, ㉢ 그러나 원고는 피고와 사이에서는 이와 같은 변경계약을 체결한 바 없고, 원고의 내부자료에 의하더라도 고객명 또는 상호는 여전히 E 청원공장으로 되어 있는 사실, ㉣ 원고는 2015. 9. 8.경 위 전기공급계약을 해지할 당시 피고가 아닌 E을 상대로 그...