1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 101,686,300 won and its payment from December 19, 2008.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2008, the Plaintiff supplied sanitary instruments, scriptive instruments, etc. to a corporation (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the remaining phenomenon, which is the executor of remodeling construction for Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from July 2008.

B. As of November 24, 2008, the Plaintiff did not receive total of KRW 100,036,300 from the price of goods as of November 24, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the price of goods as Seoul Western District Court 2009Kadan3848 with the Defendant on January 29, 2009.

C. With respect to the above case on September 30, 2009, the Seoul Western District Court sentenced the Plaintiff to pay the remaining phenomenon of KRW 101,686,300 and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 19, 2008 to the day of full payment. As the remaining phenomenon of the above case is not filing an appeal, the above judgment on October 30, 2009 became final and conclusive.

(hereinafter referred to as “the final and conclusive judgment of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 101,686,300 and the delay damages therefrom, as the remaining phenomenon related to the remodeling construction of the apartment in this case succeeds together to the goods payment obligation of the said apartment in return for the purchase of the apartment in this case.

B. Whether the assumption of obligation with respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion is overlapping is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the parties indicated in the assumption of obligation agreement. If it is not clear whether the Plaintiff is liable for discharge or for overlapping acceptance in the assumption of obligation, it is overlapped.