1. The Defendant’s KRW 57,495,80 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 11, 2016 to April 7, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant awarded a contract for the new construction of a hospital A (former B Hospital), which is a contracting party to Scenic State Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Scenic State”). The Defendant awarded a contract for the construction of a new construction of a hospital A (former B Hospital), and subcontracted the Plaintiff, who is a Scenic State, to the Plaintiff for installation of a cooperative facility with the EHP heating and cooling equipment and ERV exchange equipment during the said construction (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. On May 21, 2015, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff the final remainder of KRW 154,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) out of the instant construction cost against the Plaintiff at Liiiiiien, on the promise of the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff directly. The amount is executed after Lienenenen and the Defendant completed settlement after completion of the construction, and the remainder is executed according to the terms and conditions of the contract between Lienenenen and the Defendant.

C. On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 100,000,000 out of the above final remainder from the Defendant upon completion of all of the instant construction work. On September 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was confirmed that the remainder out of the above final remainder amount was KRW 57,495,800 from the Defendant’s site manager.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff claimed the unpaid amount of KRW 57,495,80 and damages for delay from the next day of the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint as to the unpaid amount, and the Defendant paid the unpaid amount after completing sight and settlement of accounts. The Plaintiff asserted that the due date has not yet arrived since sight and settlement have not yet been completed.

B. Where it is reasonable to view that, with respect to a juristic act attached to the Framework Act, a failure to perform an obligation would not occur if the facts indicated in the father are not occurred, it should be subject to the condition of the father, but where it is reasonable to view that the obligation should be performed even if the facts indicated have not occurred or any objection has not occurred.