A. On October 30, 2014, the Defendant awarded a contract for the construction of the instant E kindergarten (child-care center) on the said E kindergarten (hereinafter “instant electrical construction”) with the contract price of KRW 2.3 billion (Additional No. 3 billion) from C, Young-gu, Young-gu, and two parcels of land (hereinafter “instant contract”). On October 30, 2014, the Defendant awarded a subcontract with the Plaintiff who borrowed the name of F Co., Ltd.’s electrical construction (hereinafter “instant electrical construction”) with the contract price of KRW 20 million.

B. From June 1, 2014 to December 1, 2014, the Plaintiff continued and completed the instant electrical construction in an amount equivalent to KRW 190,29 million.

(Plaintiff asserts that the construction work equivalent to KRW 20 million has been completed according to the instant contract, and it is not acceptable in light of Gap evidence No. 2).

The Plaintiff received KRW 70 million in total through FG Co., Ltd., F on October 23, 2014 and October 24, 2014; and KRW 20 million in total from C to the owner of a new kindergarten construction project on January 12, 2014 and January 16, 2014, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap's evidence 1 to 6, 8, 9, 10, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above findings of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the payment amount of KRW 12.9 million for the unpaid construction cost (i.e., the construction cost of KRW 192.9 million - the payment amount of KRW 90 million) and the payment order of this case from February 14, 2018 following the day when the original copy of the payment order of this case was served on the Defendant, which is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation of the Defendant from February 14, 2018 until March 20, 2019, which is the date of the judgment of this case, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act until March 20, 2019, and delay damages by 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc.

B. (1) The defendant asserts that the plaintiff completed the electrical construction of this case on December 2014, and that the claim of this case, which was filed more than three years thereafter, is a claim after the expiration of the extinctive prescription.

(ii).