공사대금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion shall receive KRW 230,00,000, value-added tax of KRW 31,00,000,000, and KRW 33,000,000,00 for additional construction work. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 235,00,000 for construction work, and the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 235,115,240 for ready-mixed Co., Ltd. by subrogation of the Plaintiff until September 5, 2016. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction work price of KRW 50,884,760 (total construction price of KRW 294,00,00 for construction payment of KRW 235,00,000 for subrogated construction payment of KRW 8,115,240 for delay damages.
Judgment
1) We examine the determination on the portion of the construction cost of the instant new construction project, and the facts that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to KRW 230,00,000 (including value-added tax) for the instant new construction project do not conflict between the parties. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is reasonable. 2) In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the facts of recognition as to the portion of value-added tax, the entries in the evidence No. 3-1 through No. 3, the testimony of the first instance witness E, and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, ① the original Defendant stated value-added tax in the construction contract of the instant case in the amount of KRW 31,00,000, and ② the construction cost of the instant construction contract was written in a financial institution different from the agreed construction cost, the Defendant appears to be for convenience in receiving the loans, ③ In fact, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for the construction cost specified in the instant construction contract and reported to the competent tax office.