Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in enabling natural language interfaces for structured data querying through text-to-SQL generation. However, their application in real-world Business Intelligence (BI) contexts remains limited due to semantic hallucinations, structural errors, and a lack of domain-specific evaluation frameworks. In this study, we propose a Fact-Consistency Evaluation Framework for assessing the semantic accuracy of LLM-generated SQL outputs using Exaone 3.5--an instruction-tuned, bilingual LLM optimized for enterprise tasks. We construct a domain-specific benchmark comprising 219 natural language business questions across five SQL complexity levels, derived from actual sales data in LG Electronics' internal BigQuery environment. Each question is paired with a gold-standard SQL query and a validated ground-truth answer. We evaluate model performance using answer accuracy, execution success rate, semantic error rate, and non-response rate. Experimental results show that while Exaone 3.5 performs well on simple aggregation tasks (93% accuracy in L1), it exhibits substantial degradation in arithmetic reasoning (4% accuracy in H1) and grouped ranking tasks (31% in H4), with semantic errors and non-responses concentrated in complex cases. Qualitative error analysis further identifies common failure types such as misapplied arithmetic logic, incomplete filtering, and incorrect grouping operations. Our findings highlight the current limitations of LLMs in business-critical environments and underscore the need for fact-consistency validation layers and hybrid reasoning approaches. This work contributes a reproducible benchmark and evaluation methodology for advancing reliable natural language interfaces to structured enterprise data systems.