1. The Defendant’s KRW 106,700,000 per annum for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 20, 2016 to June 22, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 24, 2015, the Defendant entered into a construction contract with the future public corporation (hereinafter “undeveloped public corporation”) with respect to the construction work for the construction work for the construction work for the 5,632,00,000 won of the cost of the construction work, with respect to the construction work for the construction work for Pyeongtaek-gu grain processing (two-line grain processing) storage and the construction work for the open storage (hereinafter “instant original contract”).

B. On May 26, 2015, the future public project entered into a subcontract for construction works with the Plaintiff on a cost of KRW 935,000,000 with respect to temporary and reinforced concrete construction (hereinafter “subcontract”) among the instant prime contract construction works.

C. On November 13, 2015, the Defendant agreed to make the final settlement of the three-time progress payment with the future public officials at KRW 864,60,00 and KRW 65.352% of the base rate. As a result of the settlement, the balance of the claim for construction price against the future public officials at KRW 301,40,000 remains.

On the other hand, on October 30, 2015, future public officials entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to transfer KRW 117,700,000 of the original contract amount claim (hereinafter “instant contract for assignment of claims”), and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims by content-certified mail on November 4, 2015, and the said notification was served on the Defendant on November 5, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 117,700,000 won and delay damages to the plaintiff, the transferee of the future public interest claim, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Determination as to the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that a direct payment agreement on the subcontract construction cost and subsequent deduction claim is 1) and the Defendant’s future public service is effective development (hereinafter “effective development”) on May 26, 2015.

The main contract of this case was subcontracted with soil and packaging construction among the main contract of this case, which is the effective development.