1. The defendant shall pay 137,438,800 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from November 12, 2013 to the day of complete payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a serial number), the plaintiff entered into a supply contract with the defendant on October 19, 2012, and if the plaintiff delivers ready-mixed to the defendant on the last day of the following month, the defendant entered into a supply contract with ready-mixed that the defendant should pay for ready-mixed at the last day of the following month. The plaintiff supplied ready-mixed 3,575 cubic meters to the defendant from October 2012 to December 2 of the same year. The defendant supplied ready-mixed 3,575 cubic meters to the defendant, and the defendant did not pay the price of KRW 137,438,800 after receiving the above 3,575 cubic meters.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 137,438,800 payable to the Plaintiff and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 12, 2013 to the date of full payment, which is obviously a day after the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, sought by the Plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant stated in the contract (order No. 1) submitted by the plaintiff in the contract (order No. 1), but it was used by the plaintiff to build a sub-party A, B, and C on the D ground of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and since the plaintiff was paid the amount of ready-mixed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant stated only in the order No. 1 is without merit, but the witness's testimony as shown in the order No. 1 is hard to believe, and it is insufficient to reverse the facts acknowledged above only by the statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 3. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

The Plaintiff, who entered into a contract for the supply of the instant goods, is not A, but the Defendant, and the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixed to the “the construction site of the building D in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun,” which was newly constructed under the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff supplied the instant ready-mixed and issued a tax invoice to the Defendant as the other party, and the original Defendant.