1. The Defendant’s KRW 24,889,040 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from August 5, 2014 to August 13, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a trade name “C,” and the Defendant is a person who runs interior interior interior interior fisheries under the trade name “D.”

B. On May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a written estimate of KRW 28,283,000 to the Defendant to accept a subcontract for the funeral construction among the above restaurant interior works that the Defendant received from the store occupant located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and F, the Defendant’s attached and the head of D’s headquarters, is the same year.

6. 30. A signature was made in the written estimate above.

Around that time, the Plaintiff completed the construction work that amounted to 80% of the total construction period.

C. Meanwhile, on June 6, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 3,000,000 each to the Plaintiff on the 10th day of the same month and the 10th day of the same month.

After all, the defendant renounced the above cafeteria construction, and the above cafeteria owner completed the construction by making another cafeteria operator.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant subcontracted the above swimming pool construction to the plaintiff in KRW 28,283,00 (excluding value-added tax).

Furthermore, the plaintiff asserted that he completed the above funeral work on June 20, 2014, but the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff completed the construction work exceeding 80% of the above funeral work. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

However, the completion of the contracted construction constitutes not a condition to suspend the payment of the construction cost, but an indefinite time limit, and the completion of the construction work by the above restaurant shop shop owner is no longer possible for the plaintiff to proceed with the above waterway construction work, and the plaintiff's claim for the construction price against the defendant was due to the plaintiff's completion of the construction work. Thus, the defendant shall be deemed to have arrived at the time limit for the plaintiff's claim for the construction price against the defendant (=24,889,040 won (=28,283,000 x 1 x 0.8 x 0.8) and the following day following the delivery of the payment order in this case.