1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted, via C, that the Defendant delegated the right to conclude a contract for construction to change lighting facilities installed in the apartment complex in the area of D in accordance with the Korean-power high-efficiency LED support project, and the Defendant entered into a contract with the representative of the four apartment complexes, such as E apartment complexes, under the name of the Plaintiff, to supply PE lighting in the above complex.

However, the Defendant, on August 1, 2014, forged the above supply contract termination agreement with the Plaintiff’s seal and exercised it to the representative of the above four apartment complex. Around September 1, 2014, the Defendant entered into the same PE lighting supply contract with the representative of the above four apartment complex in the name of “F” and received the total construction cost of KRW 52,264,90.

Therefore, the defendant's receipt of the above construction cost by forging the agreement for termination of the contract under the name of the plaintiff constitutes a tort. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above construction cost amounting to 52,264,90 won and damages for delay as compensation for damages.

2. According to the overall purport of each statement and argument of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 27 (including paper numbers) as alleged by the plaintiff, it is acknowledged that the defendant, as alleged by the plaintiff, forged the agreement on the termination of a contract for the supply of LED lighting between the plaintiff and the above four apartment complexes, used it to the representative, entered into the same supply contract with the above four apartment complexes and received a total of KRW 52,264,90 in the construction cost. However, it is insufficient to recognize the above facts and evidence submitted by the plaintiff that the damages suffered by the defendant's tort are KRW 52,264,90, which is the amount equivalent to the construction cost paid by the defendant from the above four apartment complexes. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified.