The defendant is against the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. According to the facts acknowledged as above, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of the payment for July 2013 and the total amount of the payment for August 2013, 2013 according to the instant subcontract, KRW 2.21 billion (the total amount of the payment for sex), and damages for delay.

B. 1) In full view of the purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 and evidence Nos. 11 and 46, the judgment on the claim for damages for delay is as follows: “The plaintiff may claim payment of the contract price to the defendant when the construction completed inspection or completed inspection was passed; and the defendant shall pay the price to the plaintiff by the due date set within 60 days from the date of acquisition of the object; the defendant shall pay the price to the plaintiff by the due date set within 60 days from the date of acquisition of the object; on August 29, 2013, the date of redemption was set as 1,401,379,840 won as the due date of July 31, 2013; and on September 30, 2014, the date of redemption was set as 1,401,379,840 won as the date of payment; and on September 29, 2014, the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act was paid to the plaintiff by each of the aforementioned methods.

Pursuant to Article 13(7), the Defendant paid KRW 24,94,473 for the portion of July 2013 as the fee up to the date of each repayment, and KRW 13,88,194 for the portion of August 2013 as the fee up to the date of each repayment, and the fact that the Defendant was unable to repay the loan due to the failure to repay the loan on each date of repayment due to the reasons such as commencement of rehabilitation procedures.

Meanwhile, Article 2 (14) 2 of the Subcontract Act is a bill substitution payment means.