A. On April 6, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “instant public search contract”) with the Defendant, the contractor, as the owner of the fourth floor building (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground that is scheduled to be constructed on the ground B of the Geum-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant building”).

The scheduled date of completion: The contract amount on October 5, 2015: the gold-up KRW 630,000 (Won 630,000,000) - The terms and conditions of additional tax payment separately for the first time: 15% after the end of the month; 103,950,000 - the second to fourth: 15% after the end of each month; 103,950,000 - the fifth completion due to each month: 30%; 20%; 30%; 207,90,000,000 won: Interest on the interest on the interest on the interest on the interest on the lending of bank rights:

B. The instant building is a national housing and its construction services are exempt from value-added tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

C. After the conclusion of a construction contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 280,000,000 among the construction price to the Defendant until August 2015, including advance payments. The Plaintiff paid KRW 20,00,000 on September 25, 2015, KRW 79,000,000 on October 28, 2015, KRW 35,000,000 on November 29, 2015, and KRW 464,00,000 on December 5, 2015, and the Defendant issued a tax invoice that does not include value-added tax on the construction price received from the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

From October 1, 2015, the Defendant discontinued the instant construction from around October 1, 2015, and at the time of suspending the construction, the rate of elevation height is 84.20%, and the construction amount according to the period of elevation height ratio is 530,439,333 won.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4, appraiser C's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant concluded a construction contract that separately calculated the value-added tax with the Plaintiff, even though it was well aware that the instant construction project constitutes a value-added tax-free business.