1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 73,50,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 5, 2015 to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. A. A around August 2014, the Plaintiff received a subcontract from the Defendant for the work price of KRW 93,500,000 (including value-added tax) and the due date for the payment of the work price of the passenger room management system among the new construction works of the B unmanned telecom (hereinafter “instant construction”) that was ordered by the Defendant and the Defendant received from the Defendant, as “the time of completion of the construction work due to the completion of the construction.”

B. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work on or around December 2014, but the Defendant did not pay the construction cost.

C. Accordingly, on June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to A a proof of content seeking the payment of the instant construction cost, and on July 8, 2015, A sent a reply to the effect that, as the Plaintiff paid the instant construction cost to the Defendant, it would receive the instant construction cost from the Defendant.

On August 18, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, who received part of the construction cost from the Plaintiff, and paid the Plaintiff KRW 20 million.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the balance of the construction price of this case KRW 73,50,000 and the damages for delay from the date following the delivery of the application for modification of the purport of this case, and that the Defendant did not receive the payment amount in full from A. As such, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the payment period for the construction price of this case was not due.

B. In the case of a juristic act to which the judgment was attached, if it is reasonable to view that the failure to perform the obligation would not have occurred unless the facts indicated in the additional official do not occur, it should be subject to the condition of the additional official, but if it is reasonable to view that the obligation should be performed even when not only when the indicated facts have occurred but also when it has become final and conclusive that the occurrence of the indicated facts has not occurred, it shall be deemed that the fixed time limit has been determined