1. The defendant shall pay 160,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from June 20, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1.The following facts may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3:

The plaintiff is a company mainly established for the electric power distribution business, etc., and the defendant is a company mainly established for the construction business.

B. On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract by setting the construction period of the water and electricity distribution team among the new construction works of the Incheon Cheongbu District as the construction period from October 1, 2013 to March 20, 2014, with the construction cost of KRW 320,000,000 (Additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) (the same shall apply).

C. On February 3, 2014, the Defendant, the principal contractor of the said Corporation, agreed to pay KRW 160,000,000 to the Plaintiff directly as the construction cost that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff, among the construction cost under the said B, the intermediate payment of KRW 160,000 among the construction cost under the said B.

Around February 26, 2014, the said third party added the foregoing direct payment agreement to the effect that “A direct payment shall not be made in the short and high-speed power,” and the said third party added to the condition that “A direct payment shall be made until April 16, 2014.”

2.(a)

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 160,000,000 and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s request because each of the construction cost between the Plaintiff and the high-speed power and the Defendant was not settled, but the amount subject to direct payment was specified from the beginning at the time of the above direct payment agreement. On March 7, 2014, in light of the fact that the above direct payment agreement was set by the due date for the direct payment, the Defendant’s high-speed power was set at the latest around March 7, 2014, and the high-speed power was deemed to have incurred each of the payment obligations against the Plaintiff, and therefore, the said direct payment agreement was not mentioned in the agreement.