1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,875,50 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 29, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 5, 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the removal of the interior of the fourth floor of the Seo-gu Busan (hereinafter “the instant removal works”) of the fourth floor of the building (hereinafter “the instant removal works”) at KRW 37,000,000.

B. Although the Plaintiff completed the removal work by February 14, 2014, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 25,878,500 (i.e., KRW 37,000,000 - Family check of KRW 6,000 - KRW 5,121,500) out of the construction cost.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining construction cost of KRW 25,875,500, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 29, 2015 to the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as requested by the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant, on July 26, 2013, concluded a sales contract with the Global Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EM”) on the plan to remodel the instant private house and sell it in officetels. However, the Defendant asserted that, on March 6, 2015, the global energy concluded a sales contract with the global energy company (hereinafter “EM”) and subsequently rescinded the contract, and that, on March 6, 2015, the global energy agreed to pay the contract deposit and the expenses relating to the instant sales contract, thereby accepting the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the construction cost, or accepting the contractual status of the removed construction. However, the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2, upon the Plaintiff’s consent, the global energy acquired the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the construction cost

It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant acquired the contractual status of the removal construction of this case or there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the price of the removal work of this case at the par value of six million won.