손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion added by the defendant and the plaintiff in this court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. Additional determination
A. 1) The Defendant’s assertion 1) If the instant contract is interpreted as a supplementary interpretation on the premise that the entire construction project is subject to value-added tax, and the Defendant pays the amount equivalent to value-added tax additionally imposed on the Plaintiff as the construction cost, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant construction project is subject to value-added tax exemption ought to be deducted from the said construction cost on the premise that the instant construction project is subject to value-added tax exemption. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that input tax deduction was made in an appellate trial is a means of real-time attack and defense, and thus ought to be dismissed. (b) Purchase tax is set and used for smooth contracts and transactions, such as prime contractor and subcontractor, and is irrelevant to the Plaintiff’s additional tax payment. Therefore, it
B. The means of attack and defense by the Defendant’s assertion on input tax deduction of the input tax amount constitutes a means of attack and defense under Article 149 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to such an attack or defense as to delay the conclusion of a lawsuit by either party, either intentionally or by gross negligence, after the lapse of the pertinent time pursuant to the degree of litigation.
In order to determine whether a new means of attack and defense was submitted later than an appropriate time, it is trusted that the new means of attack and defense was not submitted even though there were objective circumstances that the parties could have expected to submit in the past, and that the other party and the court will not submit a new means of attack and defense.