1. The Defendant’s KRW 59,344,776 for the Plaintiff and its related KRW 6% per annum from May 21, 2018 to October 25, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The facts as to the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price against the Defendant Company D and the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price are as indicated in the attached Form “the cause

B. The Defendant responded to the instant lawsuit, but did not dispute the Plaintiff’s occurrence of the claim or the amount of the claim during the pleadings.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant’s statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 21, 2018 to October 25, 2018 (the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order), which is after the date of completion of construction as requested by the Plaintiff, was 6% per annum from May 21, 2018 to October 25, 2018 (the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order), 15% per annum from the next day to May 31, 2019, and 12% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings) was promulgated as of May 21, 2019, and thereafter, the legal interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the above Act was concluded after the enforcement date of the above amended provision (the statutory payment order from the next day to June 1, 2019, 2019).

There is an obligation to pay damages for delay calculated in proportion thereto.

B. The defendant asserts that ① the owner E and the construction cost have not been settled yet, and the owner does not recognize about 25 million won for the additional construction cost incurred by unilaterally changing the design, and ② the defendant provided only the name related to the construction administration, and the owner E and F actually executed funds at the construction site, and thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

However, the above circumstances of the defendant's assertion are the protection and protection from the defendant.