A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates electricity and communications construction business, etc. with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who constructs multi-household houses on the ground located in Daegu-gu D.

In order to newly construct the instant multi-household housing, the Defendant registered its business with the trade name of “E”, and contracted the construction of the said multi-household housing to the Oral Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Oisry Construction”).

B. On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for electrical construction of the newly constructed multi-household housing with the amount of KRW 70 million among the newly constructed construction of the said multi-household housing, and the construction was suspended due to the failure to receive the construction cost properly.

On October 15, 2013, the Defendant prepared the following payment notes with the commitment to pay the remaining construction cost of KRW 40,30,000 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”) at the time of the attending of the construction of the Oral Building, and the Plaintiff resumed the construction.

D It is confirmed that the owner himself/herself shall pay the construction cost when he/she fails to pay the construction cost for the balance of electrical construction at the construction site of Dora New Construction Project as follows:

C. Although the Plaintiff completed the remaining electrical construction, the Plaintiff did not receive the construction cost from the error construction.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 40,300,000 and damages for delay pursuant to the agreement of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that, although the Defendant made a direct payment agreement with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff could not pay the price to the Plaintiff as it paid the construction cost in full.

However, even if the instant arrangement is considered as a direct non-assignment agreement, the Defendant paid the construction cost to the construction who was not the Plaintiff after the conclusion of the instant agreement.