The plaintiff was awarded a further subcontract for the installation of 7.7 million won (including value-added tax) by the defendant around that time.

② On December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the subcontracted construction work (including an additional construction work) for a policeman.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff is the plaintiff who received 22 million won from the defendant to determine the facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, the witness C's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the subcontract price of KRW 43.45 million (i.e., KRW 57.7 million - KRW 2.7 million) and the Plaintiff’s delay damages at each rate of KRW 15% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from January 1, 2015 to January 25, 2016, which is clear that the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order is the delivery date of the instant payment order, and KRW 6% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

The defendant's assertion asserts that the contractor did not pay the construction cost to the defendant and that the contractor would pay the subcontract price to the plaintiff according to the result of the appraisal of the lawsuit.

In full view of the description of Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the defendant filed a lawsuit against D against D for the claim for construction price, etc. under the Sung-nam Branch of Suwon District Court Decision 2015Gahap3392, and the fact that the appraisal procedure is underway is recognized.

However, the above facts alone are that the defendant cannot refuse to pay the subcontract price to the plaintiff, and the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.

The plaintiff's claim is accepted.