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

A. On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion concluded a lease agreement with the Sid Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sid Construction”) which is the Defendant’s subcontractor, and leased materials.

When Dd Construction could not proceed with construction due to business difficulties, the defendant promised on February 7, 2014 that the plaintiff will accept all the materials that the plaintiff leased to Dd Construction and that the defendant will be liable and returned to the plaintiff.

After that, the defendant also leased materials directly from the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 18,529,110, and the sum of KRW 11,091,50,620,610 for the lost cost of materials that were generated from March 2014 to June 9, 2014 and KRW 29,620,610 for the lost cost of materials that were not paid until July 9, 2014.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not agree to accept all the materials that the Plaintiff leased to the Sid Construction and that the Defendant would be liable and returned to the Plaintiff, and there is no fact that the Plaintiff leased the materials from the Plaintiff.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 8, it is difficult to recognize that Eul, a joint and several surety of the Siddd Construction, a lessee, signed on February 7, 2014 at the bottom of the detailed list of the quantity of unclaimed materials and signed by the defendant's employees, stating "a confirmation of the quantity of carrying-in", and that Eul, a site manager, signed by the plaintiff's employees, stating the details of the returned materials in relation to the return of materials from April 10 to July 9, 2014. However, it is difficult to recognize that Eul, as the site manager by the above facts, signed the plaintiff's written statement on the transaction list, stating the details of the returned materials in relation to the return of materials. However, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant promised to accept all the materials leased by the plaintiff and return them.

In addition, the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7 alone is the defendant.