1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (1. basic facts) in addition to the following parts, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that "2,10,000,000 won (excluding value-added tax)" and "2,100,00,000 won (Evidence A) of the construction contract of this case shall be stated as separate from value-added tax" in subparagraph 4 of Article 1-1 of the Reasons for the Judgment of the court of first instance. However, since the plaintiffs dispute over this part, it shall be reviewed again in subparagraph 4(c) below."

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, Article 1(b)(the third 6th th 6th th th th th th th th th th).

B. Pursuant to the instant contract, the Plaintiffs paid the Defendant the amount of KRW 1,79,970,000 in total, with the amount of KRW 650,00,000 as the first progress payment, and the amount of KRW 229,40,000 as the second progress payment on March 9, 2015, and the third progress payment on April 9, 2015, with the amount of KRW 471,370,000 as the third progress payment, and the fourth progress payment on May 19, 2015, with the amount of KRW 39,20,000 as the fourth progress payment on May 19, 2015 and the amount of KRW 50,00,000 as the fifth progress payment on July 6, 2015.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) between subparagraphs 1(c) and 2(the third 9th and the tenth st st st st).

The Defendant’s succeeding intervenor filed an application for the seizure and collection order with the Defendant as the obligor and the Plaintiffs as the third obligor under the Jeonju District Court’s Militarysan Branch 2020TT 20912.

On February 13, 2020, the above court issued a collection order for the amount up to KRW 410,907,713 among the claims held by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant judgment bond”) according to the conclusion of the instant judgment, decision, etc., and issued a seizure and collection order to the Plaintiff A. The order was served on May 4, 2020 and February 17, 2020 to the Plaintiff A.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is a value-added tax-free business.