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

A. On July 2008, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant completed each of the above construction works after receiving a contract for the electrical construction cost of KRW 40 million and the fire fighting construction cost of KRW 8 million in the amount, among the construction cost of each of the construction cost, from the Defendant for the new construction of low temperature B located in Yong-gun, Young-gu, Yongnam-gun (the ordering person: the farming cooperative of Yong-gu; hereinafter referred to as “non-party cooperative”) around KRW 40 million, and that the Defendant filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of the unpaid payment of KRW 13 million and the delay damages after deducting KRW 4 million as of July 1, 2010 of the construction cost of each of the construction cost.

The plaintiff completed the construction project as alleged above by the defendant (the above low temperature warehouse was approved as of November 25, 2008), and the fact that the defendant was the actual contractor and, under the plaintiff's understanding, was the contractor's name (including the object of the tax invoice issuance) to the Cheongong Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Cheongong Construction"), does not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by the statement of Eul No. 10, because there is no dispute between the parties or by the statement of Eul No. 10.

First of all, according to the descriptions of health unit, Gap 2 (contract standard contract), Gap 6 (original account statement), and Eul 1 (written estimate), the plaintiff presented the estimated amount of electrical construction on July 1, 2008 as KRW 39,411,256 (excluding value-added tax). Accordingly, the plaintiff and defendant can recognize the fact that the construction contract form of KRW 40 million (including value-added tax) was prepared around that time.

However, on the other hand, according to each entry of Eul's 3 (in the account statement, the plaintiff's seal imprint is presumed to have been authentic), Eul's 9 (Total Expenditure Account Statement) and Eul's 3, unlike the contents of the above construction contract, they are stated as "35 million won" and under which the corporate seal of the plaintiff's representative director is affixed.