A. On April 29, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded that the husband C, who represented by the Defendant, bears the material cost for the electrical construction of the D, 3, and 4th century, and the service cost shall be paid on a daily basis. While the construction is in progress, the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the said contract and settle the construction cost.

B. On May 15, 2017, the Defendant: (a) the sum of KRW 1,622,90 (the sum of materials cost of KRW 482,900 for the service cost of KRW 1,140,00 (the sum of six persons, April 29, 2017; and (b) the same year.

5.3. Each two persons, each of whom is involved;

5.4.For the same year;

5.5. Each 1 person) x 1.90,00 won x 1.0 won x 1.55 million won among service charges (six x 1.90,000 won x 1.954) was claimed against the Plaintiff. The Defendant claimed against the Plaintiff the payment of the remainder construction cost of KRW 672,90 (1,622,900 - 9.550,00 won), and the above court on November 27, 2018, ordered the Defendant to pay money at the rate of KRW 672,90 and 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the payment order (hereinafter referred to as “the payment order of this case”) to the day of full payment (hereinafter referred to as “the payment order of this case”).

A) The order of payment was issued, and the above order was served on November 30, 30 of the same year to the Plaintiff and became final and conclusive on December 15 of the same year. 【The fact that there is no ground for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. On May 5, 2017, when the Defendant did not provide the service, the Plaintiff paid KRW 950,000,000 for the remainder of the service cost, except for the service cost on May 5, 2017, and sent the materials that had been provided by agreement with the Defendant to the said construction work. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that all of the construction cost was paid. As long as the Defendant went to the said construction site, the service cost should be paid as long as the Defendant ceased to do so, and since electric wires, etc., different from those provided by the Defendant, were returned to the Plaintiff at his own discretion, the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 482,90.