1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 246,985,640 as well as 20% per annum from June 14, 2014 to the day of full payment.

1. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the claim is a company for the purpose of the business of manufacturing, selling, and selling asphalts and aggregate and for which a subcontract was made by Nonparty Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Construction”) for part of the construction works in the Daegu High School of Science and Technology from Nonparty Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Construction”) on December 24, 2013, for which the amount of the subcontract was paid until March 31, 2014. The Plaintiff provided that the price was paid until March 31, 2014. However, the Plaintiff’s failure to receive KRW 246,985,640, out of the price of the above goods as of the date of closing the argument in the instant case, may be acknowledged by taking into account the dispute between the parties

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 246,985,640 won payable to the Plaintiff and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from June 14, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that since the defendant prepared a written statement of direct payment to Hyundai Construction so that the plaintiff can receive the above goods directly from Hyundai Construction, and thus, the plaintiff agreed not to exercise his claim against the defendant, it is impossible to comply with the plaintiff's claim.

On January 22, 2014 and February 20, 2014, the Defendant prepared a written statement of non-performance to the effect that "I consent to directly pay the price of the above goods to the Plaintiff in Hyundai Construction" two times, the fact that there is no dispute between the parties, or that I added the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including the serial number). However, the above facts alone renounced the Plaintiff’s exercise of the claim against the Defendant.

The defendant's assertion is insufficient to recognize that he/she exempted the defendant from the obligation to pay the goods, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.