1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 48,973,460 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from June 27, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. According to the reasoning of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of Gap’s testimony and pleading as a witness B, the plaintiff concluded a ready-mixed supply contract with the defendant on May 2012, and supplied the defendant with ready-mixeds equivalent to KRW 120,085,570 at the site of Jinjin-si Studio Construction at Jinjin-si. The defendant paid only KRW 71,112,110 out of the price of ready-mixed, and the defendant paid only KRW 71,112,110 to the plaintiff.

Under special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder 48,973,460 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 27, 2014 to the date of full payment after the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. On October 10, 2012, the summary of the Defendant’s assertion: (a) the Defendant sold the building site and buildings to two outside parties and completely withdrawn from the construction work, as it is difficult for the Defendant to continue construction work due to deterioration of health due to serious weather conditions, etc.

Therefore, the plaintiff shall receive the price of ready-mixed after being paid from D, etc., and the defendant is not liable for it.

B. According to the testimony of the witness D, as alleged by the Defendant, the fact that the Defendant sold all of the construction works to D on October 10, 2012 can be recognized.

However, if the defendant completely withdraws from the debtor's position and D succeeds to the debtor's position, it is necessary to obtain the plaintiff's consent. There is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff consented to it.

Rather, according to the above evidence, after October 10, 2012, the price of ready-mixed was deposited in the Plaintiff under the name of the Defendant, and the tax invoice issued by the Defendant continuously.

Ultimately, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s assertion is merely an issue of internal settlement between the Defendant and D, and that it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff.

Defendant’s assertion.