A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the person who carries on the business of manufacturing signboards with the trade name of Osan City C, and the Defendant was not paid KRW 12,505,000 out of the price so far, although the Plaintiff completed the business of manufacturing signboards with the trade name of Osan City C. < Amended by Act No. 1137, Nov. 29, 2012; Act No. 30,55,000 won on December 27, 2012; Act No. 350, Apr. 24, 2013; Act No. 12137, Apr. 7, 2013; Act No. 12,505,000 out of the price.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining construction cost of KRW 12,505,00,000 and the delay damages.

B. Although the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant contracted the Plaintiff with the construction of the signboard to F, the Plaintiff only introduced the construction site to the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not contract the construction site.

Therefore, there is no obligation to pay the remainder of the construction cost, except the remainder of the F Corporation.

2. In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments as to the evidence Nos. 1-1 to 3, 4 of the judgment No. 1-1 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is the person who conducts the business of manufacturing signboards with the trade name of Osan City through D, and the defendant completed the work equivalent to KRW 30,55,000 for the construction cost, but it is recognized that the remainder of the work was not paid KRW 6,55,000 among them.

However, the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was engaged in the E signboard construction, G banner construction, and H banner construction under a contract from the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is liable to pay the above construction work contractor is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant's remaining remainder 6,550,00 won for the F signboard work and as requested by the plaintiff, from January 22, 2015, the following day after the delivery date of the original original copy of the instant payment order, until September 6, 2016, which is the date of the ruling of the court of first instance, deemed reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence of the obligation.