1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 57,200,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 10, 2019 to August 13, 2019; and (b).

1. Around August 29, 2018, the Plaintiff and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) entered into a contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) under which the Defendant entered into a contract to give a subcontract to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) with respect to the construction of the document security system ordered by the Defendant and C Co., Ltd. (including value-added tax) to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “C”); the Plaintiff completed the construction of the document security system under the instant contract; and from the Defendant, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on November 22, 2018, the document security system was established; and from the Defendant on December 34, 2018, the sum of KRW 57,200,000,000 in total, as well as KRW 57,20,000 in total,00 in service payment; according to the above recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the accrued service payment amount of KRW 57,200,000,00,00.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The content of the instant contract states, “The terms of settlement: Payment within 30 days after the completion of the customer bond collection,” and the Defendant failed to receive the remainder service payment from C, thus the Plaintiff’s claim for the service payment unpaid was not due.

B. (1) Determination shall be made on the condition that, in the case of a juristic act to which an additional officer attached, if there is considerable reason to view that an additional officer does not perform his/her obligation unless the fact indicated in the additional officer does not occur, it should be deemed as a condition, and if it is reasonable to view that an additional officer should perform his/her obligation even when the facts indicated have occurred and the non-performance thereof has become definite,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24215, Aug. 19, 2003). In this case, the performance period of an obligation shall be deemed not only when the fact occurred, but also when the occurrence of the fact becomes impossible, and the fact does not occur within a reasonable period.