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

A. The Defendant contracted a new construction of “B” on A’s ground from the diesel Work Co., Ltd., and carried out the construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

B. The Plaintiff received orders from D at the construction site where the Defendant C was located, and supplied goods equivalent to KRW 73,656,550 from February 28, 2015 to July 31, 2015, and the Defendant repaid all the price of the goods.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on May 26, 2015, the Defendant suspended the progress of the foregoing construction work between the diesel Work Co., Ltd. and the Defendant rescinded the agreement on the said construction contract with the effect that the remaining construction works will proceed with the diesel Work Co., Ltd., and around that time, E, an employee of the diesel Work Co., Ltd, was replaced by new C.

From August 1, 2015 to January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 43,704,650 (hereinafter “instant goods”) to the above site from August 1, 2015 to January 8, 2016.

E. From August 31, 2015 to January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice on the instant goods to the Defendant.

F. On January 22, 2016, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to cancel the issuance of the said tax invoice on the ground that the transaction related to each of the said tax invoices was not supplied by the Defendant but supplied by the diesel Work Company, but was rejected by the Plaintiff.

G. The Defendant did not file an application for refund of value-added tax on the purchase of the instant goods in the process of filing value-added tax return.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 4, Eul's evidence 11, witness F's testimony, the result of an order to submit a report to the director of the tax office of astronomic't have any dispute, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserted that since he received the order from the defendant's employees G and supplied the goods of this case to the site, the defendant asserts that he is obligated to pay 43,704,650 won for the goods of this case and damages for delay.