1. The Defendant’s KRW 53,746,860 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from April 12, 2016 to July 21, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in steel products and water tool wholesale business, etc. with the trade name of B, and the Defendant is a corporation with the purpose of a reinforced concrete construction business.

B. On December 2014, the Defendant was awarded a contract with Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd. for C Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. From August 31, 2015 to March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied miscellaneous materials, safety supplies, etc. equivalent to KRW 175,731,578 at the construction site C at the construction site (hereinafter “instant goods”).

The Plaintiff received KRW 121,984,718 out of the price of the above goods as indicated in the table below, and was not paid KRW 53,746,860 of the remaining price of the goods.

Defendant 33,656,128 won on January 12, 2016, Defendant 128 on December 12, 2016, Defendant 18,859,940 won on June 37, 2016, Defendant 121,984,718 won (based on recognition) in the aggregate of KRW 121,984,718 won (based on recognition) for Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd. on June 16, 2016; Nonparty 1 through 10,286,650 won on January 33, 2016; Defendant 1 through 16, and 4-1 through 4, respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff delivered the goods of this case to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the goods to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is unreasonable since the Plaintiff supplied the instant construction work to D who received a lump sum subcontract from the Defendant.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire arguments in each of the above evidence, i.e., ① the Defendant alleged that the Defendant offered a lump sum subcontract to D, but it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant and D entered into a lump sum subcontract of the instant construction work with the Defendant merely by the statement of the evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. ② If the Defendant offered a lump sum subcontract to D, the Defendant’s account would be 84,802 out of the price of the said goods for three times from the Defendant’s account to the Plaintiff’s account.