1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 48,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 5, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff is a stock company with the purpose of running indoor construction business, etc.

The plaintiff was awarded a contract for the interior construction of the building that was newly constructed at the domicile of the defendant from the defendant.

On June 27, 2016, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 48,000,000,000, out of the construction price, until August 25, 2016, and prepared a payment note stating such content and delivered it to the Plaintiff.

(Evidence A) / [Ground for Recognition] / A 1] Facts without dispute, entry of Evidence A 1, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 48,000,000 won 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 November 5, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is obvious that the original copy of the instant payment order is the day following the delivery date to the defendant, as requested by the plaintiff.

2. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant promised to pay construction cost of KRW 48,00,000 to the Plaintiff by August 25, 2016, but the Defendant asserts that, on November 2, 2016, the non-party forest construction corporation, through a business right transfer and takeover contract, assumed the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Plaintiff.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff is accepted by the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 corporation, which entered into an agreement between the non-party 2 and the non-party 2.

However, this is merely an agreement made between the non-party on November 2, 2016, after the defendant prepared and executed the letter of rejection of the instant payment (Evidence A1) to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff, the creditor, did not consent to it.

Unless there are circumstances, this shall not be effective as a performance acceptance, and the defendant, who is the debtor, shall not be relieved of the obligation.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da88303, May 24, 2012). Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion.