1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,601,910,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from October 1, 2015 to June 9, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. A. On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the part of the structural value of the structural value of the structural part of the structural part of the structural part of the structural part of the structural part of the Housing Redevelopment Development Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant construction”) in the Dobong-12 District Housing Redevelopment Project (hereinafter “instant construction”), which was awarded by the Defendant by the Gyeonggi-do Enterprise Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Gyeong-nam Enterprise”).

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). (b)

On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff and Gyeongnam-si entered into a contract to change the construction cost of the instant subcontract to KRW 8.99 billion.3.2 million.

C. On April 7, 2015, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures for Gyeongnam Company as a custodian, and appointed A as a custodian.

On June 16, 2015, the administrator A notified the Plaintiff that the instant subcontract agreement constitutes an executory bilateral contract pursuant to Article 119 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act was terminated upon obtaining the permission of the court. D.

As of the date of closing argument in the instant case, cumulative construction cost for the part performed by the Plaintiff among the instant construction works is KRW 8,660,000,000, and the balance of the said amount that the Defendant did not pay to the Gannam Company is KRW 2,601,910,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, and the result of an inquiry into a company in the Republic of Korea by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The fact that rehabilitation procedures commenced on April 7, 2015 for Gyeongnam Company on the cause of the claim, and the cumulative performance amount of the Plaintiff’s construction work among the instant construction works is KRW 8,660,00,000, and the fact that the remainder of the price that the Defendant did not pay to Gyeongnam Company is 2,601,910,000 is as seen above, and the fact that the copy of the complaint of this case containing the purport that the Plaintiff would demand a direct payment of the price for the subcontract reaches the Defendant on September 30, 2015 is apparent in the record.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's cumulative work costs of KRW 8,660,000.