1. The Defendant’s KRW 42,196,70 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from February 18, 2015 to August 30, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person engaged in the household sales business, and the defendant is a company engaged in the construction business.

B. On May 27, 2014, Silice Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Gulice Co., Ltd”) subcontracted the construction of artificial complex in the construction of the general office building in the CF (Gu Do Do Do d hereinafter “the instant agricultural cooperative”) located in Incheon-gun B to the Defendant. On September 26, 2014, the Defendant re-subcontracted the construction of household supply and installation works to the Plaintiff at KRW 66,00,000 (including value-added tax).

(hereinafter “instant contract”). C.

The Plaintiff completed the supply and establishment of a household by the end of September 2014 under the instant contract. However, the Defendant paid KRW 13,200,000 on or around October 8, 2014, and paid KRW 22,00,000 on or around February 17, 2015, and did not pay the remainder.

On the other hand, on October 2014, the Plaintiff additionally supplied and installed the same item (including each value-added tax, the total amount of KRW 10,973,600) as attached Table 1, which is equivalent to KRW 9,900,00,00, and KRW 1,073,600, as attached Table 2.

(hereinafter “instant additional supply”). 【No dispute exists concerning the instant supply” (based on recognition), Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff made the additional supply of this case under the agreement with the defendant. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 6,00,000 won for the delivery and installation of the household according to the contract of this case, 10,973,600 won for the additional supply of this case, and 1,817,200 won for the delivery of five sets of the Korean Cargo Transport Association at the defendant's request on December 2014 (total 78,790,80 won), among 35,20,000 won for the delivery and installation of the additional supply of this case, and 10,973,600 won for the additional supply of this case, and damages for delay.

B. The additional supply of this case was directly conducted by the Plaintiff under the contract with the agricultural cooperative, and is superior to the Defendant.