1. The defendant shall pay 1,509,858,200 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from February 4, 2014 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 28, 2012, a lender for a request for examination of construction of a lender (hereinafter “large Construction”) filed a request with the director of the Gwangju District Tax Office for the assessment of value-added tax (3,817,601, 460 won for the first period of December 6, 2009) on the part of December 6, 201, and the said request for examination was received by the Board of Audit and Inspection on March 19, 2012.

B. On August 23, 2012, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and assignment order (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) with respect to the following claims under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 201j3530 on August 24, 2012, wherein the obligor is constructed, the garnishee is the Defendant, and the claim amount is KRW 5 billion (hereinafter “instant assignment order”). The said order was served on the Defendant on August 24, 2012, and was finalized on September 15, 2012.

The amount of money from among the claims for refund under the name of the Defendant, such as a set sum of 5,000,000 won (including the first installment) for which the Construction from the Defendant to be refunded by the Board of Audit and Inspection at the request of the said Board of Audit and Inspection for the purpose of January 2009, until that time, from among the claims for refund under the name of the said claims.

C. On March 14, 2013, the Board of Audit and Inspection rendered a decision to dismiss a request for examination by the Board of Audit and Inspection and a suit for construction of a lender (No. 39 of 2013). Accordingly, on June 18, 2013, the lender filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of value-added tax (hereinafter “relevant administrative litigation”) against the head of Gwangju District Tax Office (hereinafter “relevant District Court”).

On October 16, 2013, the director of the Gwangju District Tax Office ex officio revocation and appropriation of additional tax (1) pursuant to the purport of the Supreme Court's decision in relation to administrative litigation related to the construction of lender on October 16, 2013 (it is unlawful to impose additional tax by stating only the total amount of additional tax without specifying the type of additional tax and the basis for calculation of the amount of tax).