1. The defendant shall pay 86,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from October 26, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 20, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for construction work with the construction cost of KRW 121,00,000 (value of KRW 110,000,000, value-added tax, value-added tax 11,00,000), with respect to the installation file works of D D D D’s base facilities that the Defendant ordered, from October 20, 2017 to November 30, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). According to the instant contract, 50% of the construction price shall be paid in cash within 20 days after the completion of the file distribution, and the remainder 50% of the construction price shall be paid in cash within one month after completion of the file distribution.

B. After completing construction under the instant contract, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice of KRW 115,50,000 (value of KRW 105,000,000, value-added tax, KRW 10,500,000) for the total amount on January 9, 2018, and filed a claim for the payment of the construction price to the Defendant.

C. On February 5, 2018, the Plaintiff received KRW 29,500,00 from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the payment amount of KRW 86,00,000 (i.e., KRW 115,50,000 - KRW 29,500,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 26, 2019 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the construction price cannot be paid to the plaintiff because he did not receive the construction price from the ordering person.

However, according to the contract of this case, since the time limit for the payment of the construction cost has already been set and the time limit for payment has already arrived, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s assertion is a justifiable ground for refusing the payment solely on the grounds asserted by the Defendant.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.