1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,420,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 7, 2014 to January 13, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant awarded a contract to C for the construction of the Seogpo City Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do, and the Plaintiff commenced the construction of the Do Do Do Do d Do Do Do d Do d Do d Do d Do

B. C renounced the foregoing new construction work on April 29, 2014, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 29 million on the face of the week by finishing the unclaimed construction work (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. The Plaintiff completed 98% of the Unclaimed Construction until June 25, 2014, and the Defendant denied the contract for the payment of construction cost, and the Plaintiff did not proceed with the remaining unclaimed Construction.

The defendant paid to the plaintiff KRW 1 million on May 8, 2014, and KRW 10 million on the 23th of the same month, and did not pay the remainder of the construction cost.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4-1 and 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, by June 20, 2014, the Defendant was obligated to pay KRW 18 million in balance, since the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 29 million for the foregoing unclaimed construction work by June 20, 2014. (2) The Defendant paid KRW 69.6 million to C by April 18, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s claim was extinguished because C paid the above unclaimed construction work to the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s claim was asserted to be extinguished, and even if the Defendant had the Defendant’s obligation to pay for the construction work, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned unclaimed construction work should be conducted simultaneously with the construction work.

B. 1) We examine the case’s agreement, as a contract for the contract, that the Plaintiff completed only 98% on the ground of the reversal of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the construction price, without completing the above sub-construction work. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price against the Defendant was 28,420,000 won (=29,000,000 x 98%) against the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price against the Defendant and 98% (i.e., 11,000,000 won). As such, the Defendant had already received KRW 11,00,000 among them. Therefore, the special circumstances are as follows.