A. From July 25, 2013 to April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a total of KRW 55,970,101 for construction works, such as pipes, scars, and safety caps, but did not receive the price of the said goods from the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff sought payment of the said money and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant asserted that, while the Defendant was performing construction works under a subcontract for permanent residence B in 2009, it was supplied with construction works from the Plaintiff, and suspended transactions with the Plaintiff from July 2013, the Defendant’s obligation to pay goods to the Plaintiff does not remain.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the written evidence No. 1-1 through No. 72-3, the testimony of the witness C, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant issued a tax invoice to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff a pipe amounting to KRW 5,970,101 from August 25, 2013 to April 25, 2014. The Defendant issued a tax invoice that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff for construction works, such as pipe, packing plastic products, valves, and valves, and the construction company that entered into a construction contract with the Defendant in relation to the above B construction, may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff received goods from the Plaintiff during the said period. In light of the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods amounting to KRW 5,970,610 from August 25, 2013 to April 25, 2014.

As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 19, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is obvious that the copy of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant used the goods supplied by the Plaintiff for removal of obstacles. In light of the fact that D, an agent for the Plaintiff, did not claim for the cost of removal of obstacles from August 2013, while serving in the Defendant Company, the primary contractor, the Defendant was supplied.