1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 90,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 26, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. On April 17, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract on construction works for the new construction of the five-story multi-family housing (hereinafter “E housing”) on the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government D ground (hereinafter “E”) with C, and C subcontracted the boiler and gas installation works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) to the Plaintiff during the said construction works.

On September 3, 2015, the Defendant, at C’s request, prepared and sent to the Plaintiff a letter of the same content as the attached Form.

Each of the above statements is the content that the plaintiff is present at the time of the lease contract for E House 301, and that the plaintiff is agreed to receive KRW 90,000,000 as security deposit.

The Plaintiff completed all of the instant construction works.

E-house was registered as a preservation of ownership on April 22, 2016 by the Defendant, and the former lessee of E-house 301 has occupied before July 2016.

[Based on recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract for E house 301 has already been formed and the former tenant has already moved in, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the deposit money of KRW 90,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 26, 2016 to the date of full payment, as the plaintiff seeks against the above documents, barring any special circumstance.

B. The Defendant’s assertion asserts that, on November 2015, since the Defendant paid all the construction cost to C with the original copy of the above letter, the obligation under the above letter was extinguished by payment.

However, it was confirmed on the second day for pleading that the plaintiff still holds the original as above.

In addition, even if the defendant paid the above money to C after the preparation of the above letter, it is insufficient to view that C had a legitimate authority to receive the above money on behalf of the plaintiff, only with the evidence submitted by the defendant.