1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from December 1, 2016 to July 5, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 10, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant on July 10, 2016, that the construction work was KRW 61 million for the construction work, and the construction period until October 30, 2016 for the construction work, and KRW 10 million for the construction work, until July 10, 2016, KRW 15 million for the construction work, until August 15, 2016, and the remainder was paid the loan after the approval for use of the building.

B. On October 20, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the instant stone construction, and around that time, the approval for use of the said multi-family housing was granted.

C. The Defendant paid KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, but did not pay the remainder of KRW 31 million.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 7 (including each number), and the purport of whole pleading

2. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 31 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from December 1, 2016 to July 5, 2017, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant does not have a duty to pay the construction cost to the plaintiff since the owner of the building who made the plaintiff's assertion decides to pay the construction cost directly.

However, the above construction works are recognized as having entered into a contract with the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

4. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.