1. The Defendant’s KRW 47,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from March 20, 2015 to August 11, 2015, and thereafter.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 1, 2013, the Defendant was awarded a contract for “C New Construction Project” (hereinafter “instant entire project”) with KRW 2.728 billion (including value-added tax) from Samju iron Co., Ltd.

B. On August 15, 2014, D, the Defendant’s site director, subcontracted to the Plaintiff on the part of the entire construction of the instant case, “the instant construction” (hereinafter “instant construction”) KRW 54.5 million (excluding value-added tax).

After that, the construction cost of this case was determined as KRW 47 million (excluding value-added tax).

B. On August 30, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Evidence No. 1 to 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant sought damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act for the period from September 1, 2014 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case from March 20, 2015 (the plaintiff, the plaintiff, as to the above 47 million won from September 1, 2014 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case) from March 20, 2015, to the plaintiff who entered into the contract of this case with D of the defendant's field chief of the site office D, but the defendant is liable for delay from the time of receiving a claim for performance under Article 387 (2) of the Civil Act. Since the defendant's obligation for payment of the contract of this case is not specified, the defendant is liable for delay from the time of receiving the claim for performance before the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit) that the defendant's obligation to dispute about the existence or scope of the performance obligation of this case from August 111, 20.

B. The defendant's assertion 1 as to the defendant's argument is that D is a comprehensive construction company, and as a whole, D is the entire construction company.