1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 36,831,495 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 9, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs a wholesale and retail business of construction materials, and the Defendant is a company that runs indoor interior interior decoration fishery, etc.

B. The Defendant was awarded a subcontract from D Co., Ltd. for the te-Japan F Hotel Construction Work (hereinafter “instant Construction Work”).

C. From March 2016 to October 2016, the Plaintiff supplied materials equivalent to KRW 194,007,673 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) in total from March 2016 to the instant construction site. From May 2016 to January 2017, the Plaintiff received KRW 157,176,178 in total from the Defendant, etc. as material price.

[N] 26,936,000 won (WO 24 May 24, 2016)

6. 17. A wooden Team: 5,936,000 won;

7.1. The light team 11,000,000 won on the part of the parties who re-subcontracted the instant construction from the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “contractor for convenience”).

3) Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5 through 10 (including a numbered evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the parties concerned have concluded a contract for the supply of materials with the defendant on the construction site of this case, and seek the payment of the amount not received among the total prices of supply.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the above amount claimed by the plaintiff includes not only the defendant but also other subcontractors within the construction site of this case, and that the defendant paid all the corresponding amount to the plaintiff for the material that the defendant actually supplied and used.

3. Determination

A. Generally, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.

If there is a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties and the interpretation of the intention of the parties is at issue, the contents of the juristic act, the motive and background of such a juristic act.