The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. A.

The defendant's Daegu District Court Branch on January 8, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. A. On June 9, 2017, the Plaintiff (formerly: C Co., Ltd.) decided to newly build a commercial building house on the G ground of the Posi-si, Northern-si. However, the contractual name was the name of H personal name, the representative director of the Plaintiff at the time of the change.

After the conclusion of B, July 3, 2017, the Defendant subcontracted the instant construction project to the Defendant on the condition that the contract amount of KRW 58.3 million (excluding value-added tax) and the intermediate payment of KRW 20 million,00,000,000,000 from August 20, 2017, shall be paid after the completion of the structural frame of the second floor, and the remainder shall be paid within 10 days after the completion of the structural frame.

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). (b)

The instant corporation was completed around September 4, 2017.

According to Gap evidence No. 2, the completion date of the on-site food service shall be September 4, 2017, and the above date shall be deemed the completion date of the construction of this case.

C. On January 8, 2019, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 18.3 million and delay damages due to the Daegu District Court Branch Branching 2019 Ghana90. On January 8, 2019, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation regarding the above claim (hereinafter “instant decision on performance recommendation”), and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff entered into the instant subcontract with the Defendant, but the Defendant was aware of the absence of registration of construction business and performed the construction directly after destroying the said contract, and thus, there is no obligation to pay the construction cost to the Defendant.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case should be rejected.

B. Since the Defendant completed the structural construction in accordance with the instant subcontract, the Plaintiff’s assertion was modified several times by the Defendant’s assertion of KRW 12,350,000 due to the payment of the construction price to the Defendant, and thus, the written statement of the briefs dated June 11, 2020, which is the final assertion is followed.

shall be liable to pay.