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

A. On March 3, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received a contract from the captain of Busan-gun to the Busan-gun for the restoration work from March 9, 2015 to July 6, 2015; and (b) the construction cost of KRW 228,573,00 (i.e., net supply price of KRW 13,860,814, value-added tax of KRW 13,860,814, including insurance premiums of KRW 193,932,82, and KRW 20,779,364).

B. On March 23, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff, setting the construction period from March 23, 2015 to July 6, 2015, with the construction cost of KRW 130,000,000 (only for the portion of issuance of tax invoices separately from value-added tax and tax invoices).

C. On July 1, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract to change the content of the construction cost to KRW 246,30,000 due to the change of design of the instant construction project with the Busan District captain, and entered into a contract to change the content of the final construction cost to KRW 239,90,00 (i.e., net supply price of KRW 10,09,000,00,000, including net supply price of KRW 207,95,723, and KRW 186,00,000,000).

After completing the instant construction work, the Plaintiff settled the construction cost on August 28, 2015 as KRW 144,038,880 (including value-added tax, safety management expenses, and environmental preservation expenses).

E. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 144,038,880 for the instant construction cost, which was settled by November 25, 2015, and KRW 154,667,868 for the portion on which the tax invoice was issued, in total, KRW 10,628,988 for value-added tax.

On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a receipt to the Defendant stating that the Plaintiff received the full amount of the construction payment after receiving the remainder of the construction payment in the instant case.

[Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the receipt No. 3 (the receipt does not settle the construction price of this case and only the Defendant’s oral statement is trusted and mistakenly made. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff was paid the construction price after settling accounts for the construction price of this case, and the witness C’s testimony alone did not know about the settlement of the construction price of this case.