1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 37,536,00 to the Plaintiff the annual rate of KRW 15% from February 5, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 29, 2015, the Defendant concluded a construction contract with the construction company (hereinafter referred to as “land construction”) on the construction project for the extension of chemical rescue teams, which consists of the construction period of no later than November 30, 2015, and the construction amount of no more than 441,381,340 won.

B. The construction commenced on May 8, 2015 and completed on November 30 of the same year.

C. From June 13, 2015, the Plaintiff’s construction period from June 15, 2015 to June 15, 2015 with respect to the construction of reinforced concrete (hereinafter “instant construction”).

9. up to 14. A contract was made on the basis of KRW 143,00,000 (including surtax) of the construction amount.

In addition, the construction of this case was completed on September 14, 2015.

Meanwhile, on June 30, 2015, a direct payment agreement was made between the Defendant and the Plaintiff on the subcontract price for KRW 143,000,000 for the instant construction cost.

E. The Defendant paid KRW 105,464,00 among the instant construction cost, but did not pay the remainder of KRW 37,536,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Issues and judgments

A. The key issue is that the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the construction cost based on the above direct payment agreement of the subcontract price.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that, on September 23, 2015 and October 26, 2015, when the land construction is in progress, the Defendant fulfilled his/her duty to pay the construction cost by depositing the land construction and the construction cost and interest on the Plaintiff on January 21, 2016, as the Defendant received a notice of provisional attachment of claims against the debtor and the Defendant as the third debtor.

After all, the issue of this case is whether the defendant can refuse to pay the subcontract price to the plaintiff on the ground of the delivery of the above provisional attachment decision.

B. Determination 1: Construction on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant, and land.