1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,00,000, and KRW 5% per annum from April 21, 2015 to April 14, 2016, and complete payment from the following day.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the defendant on Jan. 20, 2015 with regard to the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior construction work from the urban-type housing construction work of the land surface-type city on the land surface, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and Chungcheongnam-do. The plaintiff received a down payment of KRW 5 million from the defendant and suspended the construction after completing the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior installation work of one household concurrently holding a model housing, and the defendant ceased the construction on Mar. 27, 2015. The defendant may acknowledge that "I will pay to the plaintiff by April 20, 2015, the construction cost of each apartment house constructed in Geumsan-gun and D (one household within the interior interior interior interior construction work)" (hereinafter referred to as "each of this case").

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from April 21, 2015, which is the day following the date of the instant payment order, to April 14, 2016, and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the day of full payment, pursuant to the instant payment memorandum, to the Plaintiff.

The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion that since the written statement of payment in this case was prepared to E, not the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim, according to the health class, Gap's evidence No. 2, the written statement of payment in this case stated "E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E.," but considering the fact that E is the husband of F who is the plaintiff's representative, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant prepared the written statement of payment in this case with the intent to pay the construction price to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's above argument is without merit.

The Defendant’s refusal to pay the instant amount was made by the Plaintiff’s coercion and thus null and void.