1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 121,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 23, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff entered into a contract for a construction project that sets the construction period of the penty construction project using trees as its raw material to the Defendant as the construction cost of August 30, 2012 and the construction cost of KRW 896,00,000 (hereinafter “the first construction contract”).

The Defendant imported trees from Mongolia into the Republic of Korea and decided to perform the above construction work by using them as materials, and the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the total sum of KRW 121,00,000,000 to the Defendant with the payment of the total sum of KRW 6 million on May 11, 2012, KRW 10,000 on May 29, 2012, KRW 15 million on July 6, 2012, and KRW 121,00,000.

The defendant did not import trees within the period of the first construction contract.

On April 24, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “second construction contract”) with the same content as KRW 660,000,000, by setting the period from April 24, 2013 to July 30, 2013, by terminating the first construction contract and setting the same content as that of the Defendant’s stock company (hereinafter “mother”) and the construction period introduced by the Defendant.

However, as a special agreement, it stipulated that “the tree wood of 10 square 60 square 6 guest rooms in total contract entered into by the contractor (the defendant) shall be constructed with the payment of the owner (the plaintiff) and shall be constructed with the arrival of the tree materials at the site.”

The defendant did not supply trees until the expiration of the contract period of the second construction contract, and the contract for the second construction was cancelled on July 1, 2013, collected from the plaintiff.

Since then, the plaintiff raised trees by itself and completed the penta construction work.

[Ground of recognition] A.1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings was terminated by the Plaintiff, even though the first construction contract with the Defendant was terminated, it is reasonable to deem that there was a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff would be supplied with pine trees within the second construction contract period, and that the second construction contract was concluded with the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were waiting for the supply of pine trees.

In other words, although the first contract for construction has been cancelled, the contract for tree supply remains.