1. The defendant shall pay 154,880,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from April 5, 2016 to the day of full payment.

1. The facts constituting the grounds for the claim in the separate sheet of facts may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings.

In addition, there is no dispute between the parties that at the time when the plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the subcontract price, the defendant was liable for the contract price equivalent to KRW 154,880,000 for the amount requested by the plaintiff to pay the subcontract price.

2. According to Article 14 (1) 1 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, where a principal contractor is unable to pay the subcontract consideration because the principal contractor's payment suspension, bankruptcy, other similar causes, or permission, authorization, license, registration, etc. for business is revoked, and where the subcontractor requests a direct payment of the subcontract consideration, the person ordering shall directly pay the subcontract consideration to the subcontractor.

In the case of this case, Argmanex Co., Ltd., the principal contractor, received a decision to commence rehabilitation, which constitutes “payment suspension, bankruptcy, and other similar causes” of the principal contractor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17758 Decided June 28, 2007). Accordingly, upon the Plaintiff’s request for direct payment of the subcontract price, the Defendant, who is the ordering person, is obligated to directly pay the subcontract price to the Plaintiff.

3. On the judgment of the defendant's defense, the defendant asserted that the defendant's obligation to pay the subcontract price has ceased to exist due to the abolition of the rehabilitation procedure for the defendant's objection.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, the fact that the decision to discontinue the rehabilitation procedures for the Gietex on March 31, 2016 is publicly announced.

However, the decision to discontinue the rehabilitation procedure was confirmed.

Even if the defendant's obligation to pay the subcontract price already occurred is not extinguished (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da64050 decided July 28, 2005), the defendant's above defense is justified.