1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 22,419,00 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from December 10, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Under the trade name of "A", the Plaintiff, who was operating a housing construction business, was the owner of a part of the E remodeling project located in Dongducheon-si D operated by the Defendant (hereinafter "the instant construction project"), and received KRW 130,000,000 from the Defendant out of the total construction cost of KRW 152,419,00,000 from the Defendant, may be recognized by taking into account each of the statements in subparagraphs A and 1 through 6 (including each number), and the witness F's testimony as a whole the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. The plaintiff alleged that the construction work in this case was contracted by the defendant and did not receive the construction cost of KRW 22,419,000. The defendant asserted that the contract for the construction work in this case was not made to the plaintiff, but it was not made to the plaintiff, and that there was no reason to pay the construction cost to the plaintiff, since it was paid to the Thailand Co., Ltd. in excess of the agreed amount.

C. Therefore, the following circumstances revealed as to whether the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the instant construction work, namely, whether the Defendant paid most of the construction cost directly to the Plaintiff, and the tax invoice was issued directly by the Plaintiff as the recipient of the Defendant. The witness F, who was in charge of the field management supervision of the instant construction work, was the Defendant’s agent, and the Defendant submitted the quotation and drawings (Evidence 2-2, 3) to which he first intended to receive the entire construction work. However, as the contract was concluded, it was stated that the Defendant was directly engaged in the construction work by setting the scope of the contract to the Plaintiff and other construction companies, and that the Defendant’s assertion was made by the Defendant.