A. The Defendant performed on December 15, 2018 by the Plaintiff.

E The construction cost of windows, glass, and metal construction among the construction works for neighboring living facilities was determined and awarded to KRW 236,50,000,000, and the Plaintiff completed all of the above construction work, and the Plaintiff received KRW 175,000,000 from F pursuant to a direct payment agreement between the Defendant and F, a main owner of construction, does not conflict between the parties.

B. According to each of the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff delayed damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 13, 2020 to the date of full payment, which is obvious from August 13, 2020 to the date of full payment, after deducting KRW 175,00,000 paid by the plaintiff among the construction cost of KRW 236,50,000, which was paid by the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim until the plaintiff received tax invoice from F in accordance with the above direct payment agreement, as to the construction cost which the plaintiff had already received from F in accordance with the above direct payment agreement and the construction cost that the defendant should pay in accordance with this decision.

However, the Plaintiff’s duty to issue the tax invoice against the Defendant arises regardless of the receipt of consideration in the event of the supply of goods or services pursuant to the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act (see Article 34(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act) and the Defendant’s duty to pay the construction price concurrently.

It is difficult to see the defendant's above argument.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.