1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 42,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 27, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant awarded a contract for the construction of new apartment (tentative name) located in the Sin-gu Seo-gu Seo-ri and 8 lots of land to the Sin-ri Comprehensive Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Japan-do Comprehensive Development”) for the construction of the new apartment (tentative name).

B. From April 16, 2014, the Plaintiff received a subcontract with the period of construction from April 2014 to July 2014, 2014 for painting construction among the instant apartment construction works (hereinafter “instant painting construction”); the construction amount was KRW 62,00,000 (the additional tax shall be exempted, the remainder of KRW 42,00,000 shall be paid within 30 days after completion of construction) and the warranty period of one year.

C. After that, the Plaintiff completed at least the instant construction before March 10, 2016, which was the date of application for the instant payment order, but Japanese comprehensive development did not pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 42,000,000 out of the price of the instant painting construction.

On the other hand, the Japanese comprehensive development did not issue a payment guarantee letter of subcontract consideration while subcontracting the instant construction project to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Framework Act on the Construction Industry for determining the Plaintiff’s claim provides that “Where the contractor fails to issue a subcontractor a payment guarantee letter of subcontract consideration under Article 34(2) without any justifiable reason to the subcontractor, where the ordering person confirms such fact or the subcontractor requests a direct payment to the ordering person, the ordering person shall pay the subcontractor the subcontract consideration corresponding to the portion executed by the subcontractor directly

(Article 35(2)5 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Article 35(2)5). According to the above facts, since the Japanese comprehensive development, which is the contractor, did not issue a payment guarantee letter of subcontract price when subcontracted the instant painting to the Plaintiff, the Defendant, the ordering person, is the subcontractor.