1. The Defendant’s KRW 154,908,550 among the Plaintiff and KRW 117,50,950 among them, shall be KRW 37,357,60 from April 4, 2020, and KRW 37,357,60.

Basic Facts

The defendant is a company that operates landscaping construction business, landscaping planting construction business, etc., and is performing construction work by being awarded a contract for the construction work of a new apartment in the south-Si (hereinafter referred to as the "instant construction work").

The Plaintiff provided meals to the employees belonging to the Defendant, who are operating a brin restaurant within the construction site of the above apartment site.

On February 28, 2020, the Defendant transferred to the Plaintiff KRW 61,539,450, which was part of the vegetation 111,539,450, out of the food of December 26, 2020 (on November 26, 2019, December 25, 2019) to the Plaintiff’s new bank account under the Plaintiff’s name (Account Number D; hereinafter “Plaintiff’s account”).

The Defendant’s meal stand unpaid at the construction site of this case (hereinafter “instant meal stand”) is KRW 298,216,050 as of April 3, 2020 as listed below.

Division Claim Amount of December 2019 (No. 26, 2019 - December 25, 2019) 50,000,000,000 on January 20, 2020 (no. 26, 2019 - January 25, 2020) (no. 2019 - January 26, 2020) 93,307,500 ( February 26, 2020 - February 26, 2020 - February 25, 2020) 78,917,300 (no. 200. - February 26, 200 - April 3, 200), the Defendant remitted the Plaintiff’s total account amount of KRW 75,91,250,298,16,305,405,300,305,405).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of 154,908,550 won (=298,216,050 won - 143,307,500 won), excluding the plaintiff's 143,307,50 won, where the plaintiff was paid as part of the unpaid amount from the defendant, barring any special circumstances.

On the other hand, the plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff provided food to the defendant's employees on a one-month basis and traded by the method of receiving food expenses during the following month. However, there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to the period during which the food expenses in this case were due to the fixed period, as alleged by the plaintiff, the obligation to pay the food in this case is due.