1. The Defendant’s KRW 266,472,66 of the Plaintiff and its related KRW 6% per annum from July 1, 2015 to August 28, 2015.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a company that runs the construction business, manufacturing business, processing and sales business of stone, and the defendant is a company that runs the stone construction business, the stone manufacturing and sales business, etc.

Article 1 (Details of Registration of Tender for Construction Company) The defendant's tin construction license shall be registered in the existing trading office of A (Korean New and New Public, New and New A Construction, B, etc.), and A shall actively support A with all documents necessary for the registration of tender.

Article 2. (Continuation of tin Corporation)

1.The progress of a tin project shall be carried out under the responsibility of A;

2. The defendant shall provide building stones necessary for the tin Corporation A.

3. A shall provide building stones construction personnel (including field managers) and ancillary materials.

On April 24, 2013, the Defendant concluded a stone construction license and stone supply contract with a stock company A (hereinafter referred to as “A”) as follows:

From February 10, 2015 to June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice of KRW 457,976,843 in total, as shown in the attached Table, in relation to “the construction of the e-mail apartment (hereinafter “the instant construction”) to the Defendant’s implementation.”

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 through 19, Gap evidence No. 9-1, Gap evidence No. 10, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings by the parties concerned, the plaintiff supplied the defendant with stones equivalent to KRW 457,976,843 from February 10, 2015 to June 30, 2015. The defendant paid only KRW 191,504,177 as the stone price.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid stone price of KRW 266,472,66 (=457,976,843 - 191,504,177).

The defendant's assertion that the defendant was not the plaintiff but entered into a stone supply contract with A, and only required to issue a tax invoice in the name of the plaintiff at A's request. Thus, the plaintiff cannot claim payment of the stone price to the defendant.

The defendant is different from the plaintiff in the preparatory document of October 20, 2015 on the premise that the plaintiff is the same company as the plaintiff A.