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

A. The Plaintiff is a company that aims at manufacturing and selling ready-mixeds, and the Defendant is a company that engages in construction business, etc.

B. The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 69,05,50,000 (including a tax amount of KRW 75,961,050, including tax) in total, from September 30, 2014 to January 31, 2015, with “the goods” as the Defendant and “goods” as the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment are based on the premise that the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of ready-mixeds with the Defendant with respect to the construction project undertaken in Taepo-dong at Supo-si, Supo-si (=75,961,050 won - partial repayment of KRW 40,000) and damages for delay.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the witness Gap's testimony as a whole, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a supply contract, as alleged by the Plaintiff, on the sole basis of the fact that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with the Plaintiff as the Defendant, or the Defendant appears to have dealt with the above tax invoice without raising any objection to the said tax invoice, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the supply contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.

① In addition to the tax invoice unilaterally issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, there is no disposal documents or any other data to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the supply contract of ready-mixed as alleged by the Plaintiff.

2. A, which appears to be the actual owner of the above construction, appears to be the party who entered into the contract for the supply of ready-mixeds with the Plaintiff in this court, shall be the Defendant, not the Defendant, but the State subsidy.