A. On February 17, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant made, and entered into a contract with the head of Gwangju City C and D (hereinafter “instant construction site”) under which the construction cost shall be KRW 22,400,000 (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. At the present construction site of this case, the installation of a scrink and a scrink is completed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff, upon entering into the instant contract with the Defendant, supplied the goods equivalent to KRW 22,00,000,000 to the Defendant, and thereafter, additionally supplied the goods equivalent to KRW 10,90,000 with the supply of the additional goods. Since the Defendant paid KRW 8,00,000 as the construction cost, the Defendant is obliged to pay the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 24,90,000 and value-added tax of KRW 27,390,00,00 as well as damages for delay.

B. (i) As to the claim under the instant contract, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the goods equivalent to KRW 22,000,000 under the instant contract, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 24,200,000 in total of KRW 22,00,000 and value-added tax thereon.

The Plaintiff asserts that the portion of the claim made by the Luxembourg Additional Contract supplied the goods in addition to KRW 10,900,000 after the supply of the goods under the instant contract, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff additionally supplied the goods equivalent to KRW 10,90,00 on the sole basis of evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 3 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

According to the evidence No. 3, E can be found to have confirmed that the Plaintiff’s price for goods at the construction site of this case was KRW 26,300,000, around May 2, 2014. However, E confirms as above.