1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,452,758 as well as 5% per annum from April 11, 2015 to November 25, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Pursuant to Article 11(1)4 of the Urban Development Act, the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor shall approve the designation and development plan of an urban development zone with respect to the size of 718,503 square meters in Jin-dong, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul pursuant to Article 11(1)4 of the Urban Development Act, and the Defendant is an urban development project for a zone of Eunpyeong New Town 1,

2) Of the instant urban development project district, the part supplied for construction of “national housing” as stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Housing Act was included in the housing construction site that the Defendant supplied for compensation.

B. 1) The Plaintiff and Twin Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “balm construction”)

On July 7, 2006, the Defendant’s construction works for housing site landscaping in the instant project district (hereinafter “instant landscaping works”).

A) The Plaintiff was jointly awarded a contract for construction cost of KRW 6,348,204,00. Of them, the Plaintiff and 20% of the investment rate of the construction cost of KRW 5,616,154,000 for landscaping construction except for KRW 732,050,000,000 for construction share of Non-Party Banking Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant contract”).

2) The landscaping project of this case included the creation of green parks and buffer green areas outside the national housing complex, the planting of street trees, and the installation of a living street, among the project districts of this case.

3. As a result of reviewing the payment status of value-added tax on national housing construction service projects implemented by the Defendant and the improvement measures thereof, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City concluded that “value-added tax equivalent to the ratio of the total supply area of national housing to the total supply area of national housing among value-added tax on all construction services” shall be exempted, and the amount equivalent to value-added tax shall not be paid to the Defendant on August 2007, according to the same conclusion.