1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,066,503 as well as the annual rate of KRW 6% from July 1, 2015 to August 17, 2018, and the next day.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant and the non-party Gyeongnam Enterprise Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Gyeongnam Enterprise”) concluded a contract for construction amounting to 38,294,613,00 won and construction period from January 6, 2014 to September 6, 2016, with respect to five infrastructure works, including the Incheon Airport Airport Building.

B. On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff and Gyeongnam Company concluded a supply contract, other than safety materials, among the above facility construction works.

C. From December 31, 2014 to February 28, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied Gyeongnam-si with an amount equivalent to KRW 6,877,02 of Slobaulba 6,00, and supplied 40,410,370 of safety-related materials from September 2, 2014 to February 2, 2015, and supplied 15,963,530 of hardware products on October 31, 2014 and November 30, 2014.

On March 2015, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Gyeongnam Company agreed to pay directly to the Plaintiff in the event of the occurrence of the grounds under Article 35 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”).

E. On April 7, 2015, Gyeongnam Company was decided to commence rehabilitation procedures as Seoul Central District Court 2015 Ma10070 on April 7, 2015, and the rehabilitation plan was decided on February 3, 2016, and the rehabilitation procedure was completed on November 30, 2017.

F. In the above rehabilitation case, the Plaintiff reported KRW 701,234,69 as rehabilitation claims, including KRW 70,637,402 (the amount before the purpose of claim reduction) of the price of delivered goods of this case, and received KRW 531,83,296 as rehabilitation claims.

【Evidence A】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 22, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff is a client under the Subcontract Act, and is obligated to directly pay the price for supply to the Plaintiff to Gyeongnam Company pursuant to the direct payment agreement or Article 14 of the Subcontract Act on March 2015.

B. (i) The Plaintiff and the supply contract for the company Nannam does not constitute “entrustment with manufacture” under Article 2(6) of the Subcontract Act.

The price of the Doll hardware products is the 6th and the 7th progress payment to the Gyeongnam enterprise.