1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,084,455 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from September 21, 2016 to May 30, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur engaged in the business of manufacturing signboards and advertisements in the trade name of “B,” and the Defendant is a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing signboards, advertising materials, sales, agency business, etc.

B. Around August 2016, the Plaintiff re-subcontracted the instant construction work (hereinafter “instant construction”) that the Defendant and the Defendant contracted (i) the C construction site, (ii) the D construction site, (iii) the E construction site, and (iv) the attached object management work at the F construction site.

C. On September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction and delivered it to the Defendant.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion asserts that the Plaintiff sought payment of the above 4,4330,000 won and damages for delay, since the Plaintiff entered into a sub-subcontract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant and completed the sub-subcontract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

As to this, the defendant asserts that the construction cost of the instant construction contract as determined by the plaintiff was KRW 360,84,455, and that the plaintiff paid KRW 10 million among them.

B. Determination 1) First, whether the construction cost of the instant construction contract was determined as KRW 4,330,000,000,000 was transferred from the bank account under the name of the Plaintiff on October 6, 2016 to the account under the name of the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense of KRW 36,084,455, which the Defendant is the Plaintiff, is recognized as the construction cost of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant’s defense of payment of KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff on October 6, 2016 is insufficient to recognize that the said amount was repaid in light of the descriptions in the evidence No. 4 through No. 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the said amount was repaid. Accordingly, the Defendant’s defense is rejected.

(c).