2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,017,00 as well as its full payment from May 4, 2016.

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating C, and the Defendant (Co., Ltd. (D) was awarded a contract for support from the Gyeonggi-do Forest Research Institute of Environmental Research for North Korea (hereinafter “instant Corporation”).

) As between October 30, 2015 and December 16, 2015, aggregate amounting to KRW 6,017,00 (including value-added tax) was supplied to the site of the Act.

B. On February 2, 2016, the Defendant remitted KRW 3 million out of the above aggregate amount to the Plaintiff’s account.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, 4, 8, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant directly performed the instant construction work without giving a subcontract to another business entity, and the Plaintiff concluded a contract for aggregate supply with the Defendant through F and supplied aggregate accordingly. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 3,017,000, which was unpaid out of the aggregate price.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion does not have any means to conclude a contract for aggregate supply with the Plaintiff, and since the instant construction work is subcontracted en bloc to F and G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) and the subcontractor paid the construction cost in full, there is no obligation to pay aggregate payment to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s direct payment of aggregate amount to the Plaintiff was based on the subcontractor’s request.

3. The following facts are acknowledged based on the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 9, and 11 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Defendant entered into a blanket subcontract with F and G on the instant construction, and both the evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (Agreement on the Contract for Facilities Construction) submitted as evidence are written in the name of H, the G representative director, and H was forged and the Defendant and G did not enter into a subcontract on the said terms (Evidence No. 11).