1. The Defendant’s KRW 42.8 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 6% per annum from June 21, 2019 to September 21, 2020.

On April 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the construction of a new facility for recreational pent and neighborhood living (hereinafter “E”) with the Defendant for the construction of a new facility for recreational gate and two parcels of land (hereinafter “E”) and completed the construction by entering into a subcontract with the Defendant on April 30, 2016, the construction of a new facility for E was completed by entering into a subcontract with the Defendant in the amount of KRW 96.8 million (including value added taxes). The fact that the Defendant paid KRW 90 million to the Defendant is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 6.8 million won payable to the plaintiff and the delayed damages.

At Jeju, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor contracted F new construction works to the Defendant for the recognition of the claim for the construction cost of F-built Building Construction Works (hereinafter “F-built Construction Works”). The Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract from the Defendant on January 15, 2018 for the 118,000,000 won of the Chang Ho Construction Work (including value added tax) among F-built Construction Works, and the payment of KRW 72,00,000,000 out of the construction cost is not a dispute between the parties.

The defendant's assertion and judgment, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff's assistant intervenor, who is the owner of the FF New Construction Corporation, agreed to pay the construction cost directly to the plaintiff on January 15, 2018, the defendant does not have any obligation to pay the subcontract price

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the evidence No. 1 (Direct Payment Agreement) against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and even if the authenticity is recognized, it does not mean that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was additionally paid construction expenses to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff by the subcontractor even though the Plaintiff’s Intervenor paid the construction expenses to the Defendant to the Plaintiff as the original recipient. This assertion cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the U.S. Agreement (Evidence A(2) written between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s direct payment of construction expenses is not included in the Plaintiff’s direct payment of construction expenses.

The defendant is 60,000,000 won out of the construction cost.