1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,540,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 9, 2014 to February 24, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 16, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract for a construction project with the content that the Defendant would be receiving construction works for the building site D (hereinafter “D”) E, F, and G ground (hereinafter “original contract”) from the Regional Development Department C (hereinafter “B”).

B. On April 24, 2014, the Plaintiff’s supply of and demand for construction works (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the Defendant for machinery installation works among the instant prime contract works (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

(i) 20,900,000 won (including value added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the construction cost;

(2) On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant the payment of KRW 5,060,000 for the construction cost of the E-Use Contract for the instant prime contractor (hereinafter “instant construction”).

3) On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) from the Defendant on June 20, 2014, painting, waterproof, and external installation works among H plant construction works (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(C) On July 2014, the Plaintiff paid each of the instant construction works to a police officer in KRW 39,600,000.

2) By September 19, 2014, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 2,31,060,000 in total, not later than September 19, 2014. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, and the purport of the entirety of the arguments and arguments.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of this case 24,50,000,000 won [the total construction cost of this case 65,560,000 won (the total construction cost of 20,900,000 won (the total construction cost of 5,060,000 won) - the construction cost of 41,060,000 won already paid] and damages for delay.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. The summary of the Defendant’s argument that the contractor of the instant construction project was the Defendant, the Defendant, who was not the Defendant, supplied the instant prime contract from B, and concluded the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff.

However, the defendant maintains only the part of E in the original contract with B, F, and F.