1. The defendant shall pay 130,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from March 11, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has a claim for the construction price of KRW 231,771,940 based on the payment order (No. 2013j. 91) from the Cheongju District Court for the passenger industry development corporation (hereinafter “the passenger industry development”).

B. The development of the winning industry holds a claim for the construction cost equivalent to KRW 377,00,000 against the Defendant (hereinafter “claim for the construction cost of this case”).

C. On March 4, 2013, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) against KRW 235,516,030, out of the instant construction cost claims against the Defendant, for which the development of the passenger sports industry was carried out by Cheongju District Court Branch 2013TTTT 537, and the decision was served on the Defendant on March 29, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 130,000,000, which is part of the collection amount according to the seizure and collection order of this case, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 11, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, as requested by the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that the payment period of the instant construction cost claim was “the time when the Defendant received the construction cost payment from A, the owner of the construction work,” and that the payment period of the instant construction cost claim was not yet paid by A, and thus, the payment period of the instant construction cost claim was not yet due.

However, in full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 3, the development of the No. 3 and the defendant set the due date for the payment of the construction price claim of this case as "after the completion of the steel framed," and the defendant against Gap on the premise that the said steel framed was completed.