1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 61,372,300 and KRW 25,391,30 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24,960,100 from September 16, 2015.

1. 청구원인에 관한 판단 갑 1∽4, 7∽10, 12, 13호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재 또는 영상, 증인 C의 증언, 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 피고는 서울 송파구 D공사(이하 ‘이 사건 공사’) 현장의 지반이 연약하여 중장비 진입이 어려워지자, 원고에게 ‘월 마감 후 45일 현금결제’ 조건으로 고화제(표층) 납품을 발주하고, 원고가 피고에게 2015. 7. 31.까지 25,391,300원 상당, 2015. 8. 31.까지 24,960,100원 상당, 2015. 10. 16.까지 11,020,900원 상당의 고화제를 공급한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

According to the facts acknowledged as above, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 61,372,30 (=25,391,300 KRW 24,960,100 KRW 11,020,90) and KRW 25,391,30 among them, the amount of KRW 16,00 from September 16, 2015, KRW 24,960,100 from October 16, 2015, KRW 11,020,90 from November 16, 2015 to February 15, 2016, and KRW 15% from the day following that prescribed by the Commercial Act to February 15, 2016.

2. The defendant's argument concerning the defendant's assertion asserts that the file harbor construction among the construction of this case was re-subcontracted in the dispute resolution form, and the owner of the high chemical supply company asserted by the plaintiff as an employee of the joint dispute resolution foundation C is a product supplied in the dispute resolution form.

According to the evidence Nos. 12 and 14, it is recognized that the Defendant re-subcontracted the file complaint in the instant construction project, and that the disposition of business suspension was issued on May 30, 2016 due to the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

However, according to the evidence set out in Paragraph 1, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant’s vice president, who was the vice president of the Defendant, concluded a labor contract with C on behalf of the Defendant, see, e.g., the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016Na5424, Jun. 8, 2017, and 201, and ordered C to place an order for delivery of chemical agents.