1. The defendant shall pay 43,010,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from June 5, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the defendant is the ordering person who entered into a contract for new construction of loan on the land of Gwangju metropolitan owned by Eul, and the plaintiff is the subcontractor who entered into a subcontract for the construction of loan at the cost of KRW 17 million between Eul, the principal contractor, on April 30, 2016, and the plaintiff was the subcontractor who entered into the contract for the construction of loan at the cost of the construction of loan at the cost of the construction, during the period of the construction of loan, and the subcontract for the construction of loan at the cost of the construction. The plaintiff completed the relevant construction on May 2016 under the subcontract, but has not yet been paid KRW 43 million out of the construction cost. The plaintiff requested for the payment of the remainder of the construction price to Eul on several occasions, but the plaintiff did not pay it to the defendant on more than October 7, 2016, and it can be acknowledged that the above notification reached the defendant.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the above subcontract price directly to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 14 (1) 3 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above contract price of 43 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

On December 12, 2016, the Defendant alleged that there is no direct payment of the construction cost exceeding KRW 70,917,620 for the remainder of the construction cost under the said contract to C, the principal contractor, and that there is no direct payment to the Plaintiff, the subcontractor. However, the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is insufficient to prove that the Defendant paid the remainder of the construction cost to C, and there is no other evidence to support this. Moreover, since the payment period for the remainder of the construction cost claimed by the Defendant had already been claimed by the Plaintiff, it cannot be asserted to the Plaintiff.

According to Article 14 (2) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, after the defendant, who is the ordering person, received the above direct payment claim, the principal contractor C.