1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 25, 2015, the Defendant, upon which the instant payment order became final and conclusive, applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff under the court No. 2015 tea1503, and filed a payment order with the Plaintiff on April 2, 2015, this court ordered the Defendant to pay “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 13,018,050, and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum per annum from the day following the delivery of the instant payment order to the day of complete payment.” The said payment order was served on the Plaintiff on April 7, 2015, and was finalized as is on April 22, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). / [Ground] A without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff is the representative (in-house director) of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) and operates the said company.

After the closure of business on September 30, 2009, the plaintiff did not use the industrial electricity, and even if he had used the electricity, since he did not have the duty to pay the usage fee to the non-party company, the plaintiff as its representative did not exist. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff continued to use the electricity for personal business purposes even after the closure of the non-party company, the plaintiff has the duty to pay the unpaid electricity fee of KRW 13,018,050 to the defendant from September 15, 2014 to January 5, 2015.

B. We examine the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of arguments in each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including the number of copies), i.e., the defendant, around October 2003, performed construction works to supply industrial electricity in the wife population C, which is the location of the non-party company's place of business, and supplied industrial electricity from that time. The defendant imposed both the construction cost and the electricity fee on the non-party company and paid them to the plaintiff who was not the non-party company because they did not raise any objection. The defendant continued to exist in the above location after September 30, 209, when the non-party company closed its business.