1. The defendant shall pay 5,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from June 11, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in evidence Nos. 1 through 5 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 8250,000,000 to the Defendant, respectively, to the effect that: (a) the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the production and installation work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) by the Defendant (the trade name “C”) around January 2019; (b) the amount of the instant construction cost to be settled and paid to the Plaintiff around April 1, 2019; and (c) the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant on February 18, 2019; and (d) the tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 675,00,000,000 to the Defendant on April 14, 2019.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 11, 2019 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks from June 11, 2019, which is the day after the complaint of this case was served to the Defendant. Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019), the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019).

2. The defendant's argument concerning the defendant's assertion argues to the purport that it is improper to seek payment of the subcontract price for the construction of this case against the defendant, since the person who subcontracted the construction of this case to the plaintiff is not the defendant but the "stock

In this case, it seems to be D Co., Ltd. to have been awarded a contract for the instant construction by E Co., Ltd., the original owner of the instant construction project.

(B) However, there is no evidence to prove that the principal agent who subcontracted the instant construction project to the Plaintiff is D, whereas the Plaintiff subcontracted the instant construction project to the Plaintiff.