2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On March 31, 2012, C entered into a construction contract between the Defendant and the Defendant with respect to the E- Reading Room D 2F located in Namyang-si, the construction cost of which is KRW 150,250,000 (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

B. Accordingly, from March 31, 2012 to July 10, 2012, the Defendant paid C the construction cost of KRW 14,6850,00 to C, and C completed the instant construction work on June 13, 2012 between them.

C Around July 2012, when reporting the output tax amount in the year of 2012, C declared the value-added tax amounting to five million won for the instant construction, and the Defendant paid five million won as value-added tax to C from May 29, 2013 to July 2, 2013 under an agreement with the Plaintiff.

C. After that, F Co., Ltd., a representative of C, received a decision of omitting sales, along with a penalty surcharge equivalent to KRW 200 million on December 5, 2013, as a result of the tax investigation on the portion of sales in 2012, and C received a decision of omitting sales. Accordingly, C transferred the said claim to the Plaintiff on December 22, 2013, and notified the Defendant of the fact of transfer on February 27, 2014.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 4 through 9, Eul's 1-1 to 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. At the time of the instant construction contract, the Defendant and C paid only part of the value-added tax on the instant construction contract, and the remainder of the value-added tax was agreed to bear the Defendant’s burden in the event that any inevitable cause arises later (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Accordingly, the Defendant paid only the value-added tax of KRW 5 million agreed upon to the Plaintiff.

B. However, as a result of the investigation of value-added tax, the omission of sales was confirmed and thus, the penalty surcharge was imposed on C. This constitutes grounds for the burden of value-added tax under the instant agreement, and thus, the Defendant shall be unpaid to C.