1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 54,475,487 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 21, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

In addition to the purport of the entire argument in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the plaintiff is obligated to supply 230,442,987 won to the defendant from December 2, 2017 to April 2018, and pay 54,475,487 won by receiving 175,967,50 won from the defendant (i.e., the price of supplied goods 230,442,987 won - the above payment amount - 175,967,50 won). Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at a rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 21, 2018, which is the day following the delivery date of the payment order of this case sought by the plaintiff after the payment date to the day of complete payment.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff's claim for payment of KRW 35,723,90, out of the above claim against the defendant (hereinafter "the claim of this case") was provisionally seized by Danck Co., Ltd., and therefore, the part equivalent to the above KRW 35,723,90, out of the plaintiff's claim of this case is groundless. However, even if provisional seizure is made on the claim of this case, it is merely prohibited by the debtor from collecting the payment from the third debtor in reality, and the debtor can not file a lawsuit against the third debtor for its performance, and the court cannot reject it on the ground that provisional seizure is made (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da59033, Apr. 26, 2002). The defendant's above claim of this case is without merit.

As the plaintiff seized the defendant's claim against Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd. with the claim of this case as the preserved claim of this case, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case is groundless. However, provisional seizure against the plaintiff's claim of this case is only to preserve compulsory execution when the plaintiff is awarded a favorable judgment in the lawsuit of this case, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is satisfied through the procedure such as transferring provisional seizure against the above claim to the principal seizure.