1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 5,452,50 to the Plaintiff the annual interest rate of KRW 15% from September 23, 2017 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Before around 2016, reroroto Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “reroroto”) subcontracted the instant construction work of reinforced concrete (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the neighborhood living facilities and the new construction work of apartment houses in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the construction cost of KRW 260,000,000 (excluding value-added tax).

B. On October 21, 2016, the Defendant re-subcontracted the instant construction work with the construction cost of KRW 203,700,000 (excluding value-added tax).

C. According to the Defendant’s instruction, the Plaintiff supplied labor human resources and materials at the instant construction site from November 1, 2016 to February 9, 2017, and subsequently paid KRW 33,952,500 for the supply of labor human resources from re-transmission; however, the Plaintiff did not receive the amount equivalent to KRW 5,452,50 for the material price.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers)

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, barring special circumstances, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5,452,50, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 23, 2017 to the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the application for extension of the claim of this case, as requested by the Plaintiff, to the day of full payment.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff was paid the material price of KRW 5,452,50 by directly claiming the materials from reroroto.

Although the fact that the Plaintiff received direct payment of KRW 33,952,50 in the amount equivalent to the wages paid by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff received direct payment of KRW 5,452,50 in the amount of materials from the iroto.e., i., ii).

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.