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

The Plaintiff spent an amount equivalent to KRW 49,793,160 in total, of the design service cost (8.8 million won), E, who worked from November 2014 to October 2015, and F’s wages, insurance premium, and discharging equipment, which were worked from May 2015 to October 2015.

However, the Defendant incurred damages equivalent to KRW 49,793,160 that was paid as above due to the failure to perform the contract, such as delaying the procedure for approving the commencement of construction works under the contract and concluding the contract with another company.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the above damages.

2. To accept the Plaintiff’s request for judgment, the fact that the contract for construction work (Evidence A 3) claimed by the Plaintiff was concluded by a lawful authorized person should be acknowledged.

In other words, the issue of this case is whether B has a legitimate authority to act on behalf of the defendant with respect to the construction contract.

The burden of proof on this is against the plaintiff.

The purport of Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 17-1, and witness Eul's testimony is that "B entered into the instant contract with the plaintiff upon delegation of authority from the defendant."

However, in full view of the following circumstances, evidence No. 17-1, No. 2, and No. 3, which can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings, the above evidence cannot be believed as it is.

Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the authenticity of evidence Nos. 3 (Standard Contract for Private Construction Works) and evidence Nos. 9 (Delegation Clause), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

① First, the Plaintiff submitted in light of the following circumstances: