1. The defendant shall pay 82,762,600 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from May 21, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff under which the contract amount was KRW 238,700,000 for the construction of structures, etc. during the C District Site Development Project (hereinafter “instant construction”).

Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the contract amount of the instant construction to KRW 217,800,000.

2) Although the Plaintiff completed the instant construction, it did not receive KRW 82,762,60 of the construction cost.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff delayed damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from May 21, 2020 to the day of full payment after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff, which is calculated at the rate of 82,762,60 won per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to receive the payment of the construction cost from the executor and the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the payment of the construction cost, and thus, they did not enter the time of payment of the payment of the construction cost into the construction contract. Since the executor did not pay the payment of the payment to the Defendant, the Defendant did not arrive at the time of payment of the construction

B. In the judgment contract, the party who made such assertion bears the burden of proving that the remuneration for the receiver is to be paid simultaneously with the delivery of the completed object (Article 665(1) of the Civil Code), and that the payment was fixed differently from the above provision.

The statement in Eul evidence No. 1 alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff and the defendant set the due date for the payment of the construction price of this case as "when the executor has paid the money to the defendant", and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.

3. Conclusion.