1. The Plaintiff’s debt based on the electronic bill stated in the separate sheet against the Defendant does not exist.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures steel products and concrete files, and the Defendant is a construction machinery contractor and a person who engages in construction machinery rental business.

B. The Plaintiff had the Defendant transport sand and had the Defendant bear the liability of KRW 19,728,50 for the cost of sand transport up to October 31, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant transportation expense obligation”). C.

On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff issued and delivered an electronic bill, the face value of which is KRW 19,728,500 at face value, electronic bill number B, issuance date, November 25, 2015, and February 26, 2016 at the time of the payment, the national bank of the place of payment, the recipient A, and the issuance date, and the electronic bill (hereinafter “electronic bill 1 of this case”). D.

On December 22, 2015, the Plaintiff issued the electronic bill No. 1 of this case, and then re-issued and delivered to the Defendant the electronic bill indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant electronic bill”) on December 22, 2015.

E. The Plaintiff demanded the return of the instant electronic bill to the effect that the electronic bill No. 2 was issued in duplicate to the Defendant, but the Defendant refused to comply therewith. On January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff received an accident report on the instant electronic bill No. 2 and deposited KRW 19,728,500 with the accident report security deposit on February 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1, 2, 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the electronic bill No. 2 of this case was issued without any debt arising from the cause of the issuance of the bill, the plaintiff may refuse to pay the above electronic bill based on the circumstance that the defendant, who is the party to the bill, has no debt arising from the cause of the issuance of the bill. Therefore, the plaintiff shall not bear the above electronic bill-based liability in relation to the defendant.

In addition, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff under the electronic bill No. 2 of this case.