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

A. On August 18, 2017, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the manufacture and installation of D, which was ordered by the non-party company C (hereinafter “non-party company”) from August 18, 2017 to February 18, 2018, with the period of contract fixed from August 18, 2017 to February 18, 2018, as the contract amount of KRW 2,700,000,000, and the place of delivery, as the non-party company E-owned company E-based

B. On September 1, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the extension of electric power plant and electrical construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) that constitutes part of the said construction (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) at KRW 93,500,000 during the contract period from September 2, 2017 to December 30, 2017.

C. Around December 30, 2017, the Defendant issued electronic tax invoices of KRW 93,500,000, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 93,500,000 to the Defendant on January 25, 2018.

On June 22, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the Defendant requested the suspension and removal of electricity installed in the non-party company’s workplace.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff affixed the Plaintiff’s seal impression on the certificate of the performance of electrical construction in 2017, stating that the Defendant completed the instant construction.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings was denied to the effect that the plaintiff's seal affixed to Eul No. 1 on the first date for pleading was affixed to the purport that the plaintiff's seal affixed to Eul No. 1 on the second date for pleading, and that the plaintiff's seal affixed to the plaintiff's seal was affixed to the plaintiff

However, in the legal brief dated April 2, 2019, the plaintiff stated to the effect that the defendant demanded to affix a seal for the verification of performance of work and that the plaintiff affixed the seal, and the evidence No. 1 of Eul is admissible as it is recognized that the authenticity has been established.

Even if the plaintiff does not recognize the authenticity of No. 1, it is recognized that the signature affixed to the document is affixed by the seal affixed to the name of the preparing person.