1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,860,296 as well as annual 5% from July 10, 2014 to January 16, 2015, and the next day.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 13, 2014, the Defendant concluded a contract with Nonparty A on June 25, 2014, setting the price for the basic construction among the factory expansion works for the total cost of KRW 857-1, Yangsan-dong, Yangsan-si (hereinafter “the construction cost in this case”) as the price for KRW 469,74,056 (including value-added tax) and the construction period as the price for the construction work.

B. The Defendant paid A the instant construction cost of KRW 130 million on April 21, 2014, KRW 50 million on May 9, 2014, KRW 190 million on July 1, 2014, and KRW 370 million on a total amount of KRW 373 million on July 1, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, in relation to the instant construction project, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the payment for ready-mixeds to be borne by the U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “U.S.”), and paid the payment for ready-mixeds of KRW 43,469,800 on December 1, 2014.

On July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied steel bars to the instant construction site was transferred KRW 72,779,732 of the construction cost of the instant construction site from A, and A notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and Eul evidence 6 to 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Grounds for the claim;

A. The Plaintiff, based on the direct payment agreement or the payment guarantee agreement, agreed to pay directly to the Plaintiff the steel bars supplied at the construction site of this case.

Inasmuch as it is alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 72,779,732 for the remainder of the steel contract that remains after the payment was made or the payment was guaranteed, it is insufficient to recognize the fact of direct non-payment agreement or payment guarantee by the Plaintiff’s testimony only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 4, 5, 77, and 11, and witness B, and there is no

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. (i) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, as the Plaintiff was assigned KRW 72,779,732, out of KRW 90,040,051 of the instant claim for construction cost against the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant does the construction work of this case.