2. This Court shall be construed as “the first instance court”, and “appraisal” shall be construed as “the first instance court” in a lump sum as “the first instance court appraiser.”

From the last 6th parallels up to 7th parallels as follows:

B) As to whether the Defendant agreed to pay an amount equivalent to value-added tax on the instant construction cost, the instant contract document provides that “five. Contract amount: KRW 415,00,000 shall be calculated on a daily basis: Provided, That in light of such explicit contract terms, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay an amount equivalent to value-added tax, which is separate from the contract amount, as to the instant contract contract, to the Defendant, and there is no counter-proof otherwise. In this regard, the Defendant asserted that there is no liability to pay an amount equivalent to value-added tax unless the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice. However, in the event that the contractor agreed to pay value-added tax, whether to issue the contractor’s tax invoice or whether to pay value-added tax is not affected by the contractor’s obligation to pay the amount equivalent to value-added tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da214691, 21407, Oct. 29, 2015). 3). Therefore, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion cannot be accepted.

9. Up to 12 parallels shall be 9.0 parallels as follows:

The following circumstances, i.e., a design contract between the defendant and H, known by the above facts of recognition or shown in the argument of this case.