1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 9, 2016 to December 19, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant: (a) contracted the remodeling construction of the building C in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, the Plaintiff subcontracted the said removal construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the Nonparty Company; and (b) completed the instant construction work on or around December 2015, upon receiving a subcontract from the Nonparty Company.

B. On June 3, 2016, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35 million as the price for the instant construction in the presence of the Nonparty Company, by July 20, 2016, in the presence of the Nonparty Company.

(hereinafter “instant direct payment agreement”). [Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction cost of the instant construction subcontracted by the Nonparty Company is KRW 38.5 million (including value-added tax). Since the Defendant, the ordering person, agreed to pay directly KRW 35 million, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 35 million to the Plaintiff, the subcontractor.

3. The fact that the Plaintiff, the subcontractor, was awarded a subcontract for the instant construction among remodeling construction works for the Busan-gu Busan-gu C building ordered by the Defendant from the Nonparty Company, the contractor, and the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant direct payment agreement on June 3, 2016 is as seen earlier.

Meanwhile, according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 10 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff accepted a subcontract for the instant construction work from the non-party company for KRW 23 million, and on September 23, 2015, he/she directly received KRW 3 million from the defendant.

According to the above facts, the defendant sought against the plaintiff 20 million won (i.e., KRW 23 million - KRW 3 million) and the plaintiff, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and it is reasonable for the defendant to raise a dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation, from August 9, 2016 until December 19, 2017, which is the date of the pronouncement of the judgment of this case, to the day of full payment.