1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 45,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 26, 2016 to the day of full payment.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to the entry of evidence No. 1.

(1) The Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the fixed voting time works among the construction works for the joint voting of both weeks and C and D land-based lending from the Defendant, and completed the fixed voting time works.

(2) On April 1, 2014, the Defendant prepared a letter of payment stating that “The remainder amount of KRW 45 million shall be paid out of the total voting construction contract amount of the above construction works, but the government district court 2012Gahap7875 (E), Jung-gu District Court 2013Gadan17988 (F) and Suwon District Court Ansan Branch 2013Gadan1669 (G) shall be paid immediately upon completion of the lawsuit,” and issued it to the Plaintiff.

(3) All of the cases in Suwon District Court No. 2012Gahap775 and the District Court No. 2013Kadan17988 were terminated, and the case in Suwon District Court No. 2013Kadan1669 was rendered a judgment in the first instance court and the appellate court, and the case is currently pending in the final appeal.

B. In full view of the above-mentioned facts and the oral evidence, the Plaintiff completed the passenger voting, but the costs of construction which was not paid by the Defendant, upon the completion of the lawsuit, was 45 million won, and the Defendant, upon the completion of the lawsuit, prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a written statement of payment that was immediately paid, and the purport of the payment was not the condition that the payment of the unpaid construction costs should be made in kind, but merely the meaning of the promise that the payment should be made in kind, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction costs of KRW 45 million and the delay damages therefrom.

C. On October 26, 2016, the Defendant’s lawsuit promotion, etc. is clearly based on the record that the instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff and the next day after the original of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant.