1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,850,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from September 10, 2019 to April 23, 2020.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 10, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for supply of goods (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content of supplying sanitary tools, etc. at the site of the Mechanical Equipment Construction Work (hereinafter “instant Construction Work”) among the construction works for the complex building located in the Gangseo-gu Busan (hereinafter “instant construction”), and supplied an amount equivalent to KRW 36,380,000 (including value-added tax) at the instant construction site from July 17, 2018 to July 30, 2018.

B. The Plaintiff is a person who received KRW 20,000,000 out of the above goods price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining amount of KRW 16,850,000 for the goods under the contract of this case (=36,850,000 - 20,000) and damages for delay.

3. The Defendant’s assertion argues that the Defendant is exempted from the obligation to pay the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on direct payment to receive the price of goods directly from E companies, which are subcontractors to the instant construction project.

The plaintiff consented to the direct payment of the price for the goods from the E company, and the fact that the E company received KRW 20,00,000 out of the price for the goods from the E company does not conflict between the parties, but further, as to whether the plaintiff consented to the discharge of the defendant's obligation due to the above direct payment agreement, the evidence submitted by the defendant, such as the statement of the evidence Nos. 3 through 9, 14, 16, and 17, is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's claim is reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation from September 10, 2019, the following day after the delivery of the payment order of this case to the plaintiff (the plaintiff reduced the plaintiff's claim in the lawsuit).