1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall be an agricultural company.

1. On June 8, 2016, the Plaintiff’s implementation of the “Reinforcement Land Construction Work” (hereinafter “instant Reinforcement”) of the Gyeongnam Development-gun E Factory Construction Work ordered by Nonparty Incorporated Co., Ltd. D (hereinafter “D”) (hereinafter “instant construction”) to complete the instant Reinforcement Land Construction Work.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the key issue are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff received a supply of the instant reinforced soil from the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant is obligated to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff; and (c) the Defendant presented the evidence No. 3

B. The defendant's assertion that the construction of this case ordered by D does not have the fact that it actually performed the construction of this case, and only lent the name of the construction on the ground of fund execution.

Ultimately, there was no fact that the construction contract was concluded with the Plaintiff for the reinforcement of the instant case, and there was no fact that the Defendant’s seal impression was affixed in the principal contractor column of the evidence No. 3.

C. Whether the contract for the reinforcement of the instant case was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant based on the evidence No. 3

A. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the signature-keeping’s seal affixed to the signature-keeping’s seal affixed to the relevant legal doctrine document is de facto presumed to be based on the will of the person in whose name the signature is written, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the document is presumed to be established. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to be established, the authenticity of the document is presumed to be established. However, if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was conducted by a person other than the person in whose name the signature was written, the document presenter is liable to prove that the act of affixing the seal was based

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831 Decided September 24, 2009). B.

Defendant A’s “original business operator” as provided for in the evidence No. 3 between the Defendant and the Prosecutor.