1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 18,38,684 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 21, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 2, 2015, the Defendant awarded a contract for the construction of the elevator installation works among the said new construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) to the Plaintiff on the ground of C, the Defendant awarded a contract for the construction of the C C-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

B. After suspending the above construction, D re-subcontracted the remainder of the construction from Meart Construction to Meart Construction with the exception of Calart Construction and Changho Construction, and agreed with the Plaintiff to succeed to the instant construction contract as it is.

Although the Plaintiff commenced the instant construction, D paid only KRW 12,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff suspended the instant construction around January 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant sought the plaintiff and requested the resumption of construction by directly paying the construction cost, and D consented thereto.

C. From March 22, 2016 to April 20, 2017, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 87,000,000.

On June 2016, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work and then delivered the completion certificate to the Defendant, and the Defendant obtained approval for the use of the above loan on July 5, 2016.

E. On September 29, 2017, an elevator, a creditor against the Plaintiff, was issued a seizure and collection order regarding the claim of KRW 32,211,316, out of the instant construction price claim asserted by the Plaintiff against the Defendant.

F. On November 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for rehabilitation with the Suwon District Court, and the said court rendered a simplified decision on the commencement of rehabilitation procedures as a summary order of 10010 dated November 6, 2017, and became a custodian due to the Plaintiff’s failure to appoint a custodian separately.

After that, the above court on May 14, 2018.