1. The Defendant’s KRW 76,390,100 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 13, 2016 to January 10, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant contracted the construction of the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”) to Scco Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Scco Co., Ltd.”). Around January 2015, Nonparty Company awarded a subcontract for construction of the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”) at the rate of KRW 950,00 per average construction cost and KRW 950,00 per construction period from January 13, 2015 to May 12, 2015.

B. Around January 2015, the Plaintiff received re-subcontracted the instant structural construction in KRW 107,00,000 for construction cost, and completed the said structural construction around May 31, 2015.

C. On June 26, 2015, the Defendant: (a) drafted and delivered to the Plaintiff a written contract for the sale of KRW 107,00,000 of the instant building (hereinafter “instant contract for sale”) with the selling price of KRW 104,401,00 among the instant building (hereinafter “instant 401”); and (b) as a matter of the special agreement, the Defendant stated that “this contract is a contract for securing the amount of personnel expenses for the structural construction works (water cost); (c) so, the Defendant shall not transfer or take over the instant goods other than the contractor to a third party. This contract is a substitute product, and this is run after the contractor is notified at the time of the occurrence of the loan or at the time of the tenant’s occurrence.”

On September 24, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff.

Grounds for recognition: Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, 3, and the whole purport of pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, although the Defendant did not directly conclude a contract for the instant framework construction with the Plaintiff, the Defendant issued the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff in order to secure the Plaintiff’s payment of the instant framework construction cost, and paid KRW 30 million out of the said aggregate construction cost.

According to the above, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant agreed to pay the price for the structural construction of this case to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the price for the structural construction of this case to the Plaintiff.