1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 56,64,836 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from January 28, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to the grounds for the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional numbers), the Plaintiff is obligated to enter into a continuous supply contract with the Defendant and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 28, 2015 to August 31, 2014, while the Plaintiff supplied construction materials and safety supplies to the Defendant from February 26, 2014 to August 31, 2014, but did not receive KRW 56,664,836 out of the proceeds of the goods. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 28, 2015 to the date of full payment

2. On September 2014, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price against Suwon District Court was reasonable only within the extent of 21,664,836 won (=56,64,836-35,000,000 won) since the Defendant’s claim for the construction price against the Defendant was provisionally seized and the Defendant’s claim for the construction price was deposited at KRW 35,00,00 on the ground of the aforementioned provisional seizure. However, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim was reasonable only within the extent of 21,64,836 won (=56,64,836,836-35,000 won) on the ground that the obligee attached the obligor’s claim and the third obligor deposited his/her obligation on the ground of the provisional seizure

Since the claim for performance cannot be seen as limited by the obligee, the defendant's assertion itself is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.