On May 4, 1995, the Defendant, from the head of the Dong-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City, owned by the head of the Dong-gu Daejeon District Office, had a main purpose on the ground of 6853 square meters in the Dong-gu B, Daejeon, Daejeon, and had a structure installed as a steel concrete menter, and obtained a building permit for a building of which the size is 679.5 square meters in the underground floor, 39.5 square meters in the first floor, 396.0 square meters in the second floor, 414.0 square meters in the second floor, and 163.5 square meters in the third floor and 14.0 square meters in the third floor (49.08 square meters), and thereafter, the location of the building was changed without changing the area

On the 15th of the same month, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the entire construction of the underground base destruction and structural frame of the above building. The Plaintiff concluded a contract for construction works (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, “The construction cost of the underground base destruction shall be KRW 5,00,000 per square meter, and the construction cost of the structural foundation shall be calculated at KRW 500,000 per square meter, and the payment date and amount of the construction cost of the structural foundation construction shall be calculated at KRW 30,000 per square meter per square meter, 20% after the completion of the construction of the first floor, 20% after the completion of the construction of the second floor, 50% after the completion of the construction of the construction of the second floor, and the construction period shall be at least three months from the date of the commencement of the construction (hereinafter “instant contract”).

Although subparagraph 4 (Agreement) states that "The amount of customs duties incurred during the construction work shall be borne by Eul (the plaintiff)" in paragraph (9) of this Article, it is reasonable to view that the above subparagraph 4 is attached to the evidence No. 3 (the contract for construction work) and the amount of customs duties imposed on the plaintiff pursuant to the above evidence No. 4 is equivalent to the amount of customs duties other than the value-added tax on the construction work cost, in light of the fact that the above evidence No. 3 states that the construction cost of the aggregate construction work shall be calculated as KRW 500,000 on an ordinary average, and the value-added tax shall be calculated separately from the value-added tax on the construction cost." While the plaintiff started and started the construction work in accordance with the contract for this case, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff selected