1. The Defendant’s KRW 232,50,000 as well as 5% per annum from August 16, 2014 to September 26, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 17, 2014, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the construction of a golf course in Youngwon-si, Youngwon-si, Inc. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) with the Plaintiff on February 17, 2014, for the construction cost of the said newly constructed construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) at KRW 368,50,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from February 17, 2014.

4. On the other hand, a subcontract was set at 30.30, and the contract price was set at the end of each month to be paid within 45 days.

B. Next, the Defendant agreed to increase the construction cost of the instant construction in KRW 412,50,000 and to extend the scheduled completion date to June 25, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work on June 25, 2014 under the said construction contract, but failed to receive KRW 232,500,000, out of the construction cost of KRW 368,500,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 232,500,000 unpaid construction cost, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from August 16, 2014 to September 26, 2014 on the record that the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant from August 16, 2014, which is the day following the date of payment of the agreed construction cost to the Defendant, and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the

3. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that the plaintiff can directly receive the subcontract price from the non-party company that is the ordering person of the construction work of this case pursuant to Article 35 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, so the defendant's obligation to pay the unpaid contract price to the plaintiff is extinguished. Thus, it is insufficient to view that the plaintiff can seek a direct payment of the subcontract price to the non-party company that is the ordering person pursuant to Article 35 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. This is otherwise recognized.