1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,600,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 31, 2017 to February 5, 2020.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 29, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of and demand for the construction cost of KRW 120,000 (excluding value-added tax 10%) among the construction works for construction of a new building on the ground of 762 square meters in Gangseo-si D 762 square meters.

B. On June 12, 2017, while the construction was in progress, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for supply of and demand for the construction cost of KRW 48 million (excluding value-added tax 10%) among the construction works for the said new construction works.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”, including the said steel framed construction and the basic cryp construction.

Around July 23, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the construction of the steel frame and the partial construction of each type of construction (basic construction) around July 16, 2017.

However, according to Gap's evidence No. 5-4, the facts that completed around July 23, 2017, which was 15 days before August 7, 2017, can be acknowledged.

Upon completion and delivery to the Defendant.

The above building was approved on December 15, 2017. D.

The Plaintiff received only KRW 151,200,000 from the Defendant as the price for the instant construction work.

E. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the remainder of the construction work within seven days from the date of receipt of the object under each of the instant construction contracts.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap1 to 5 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 33,600,000 (including value-added tax of KRW 16,800,000) out of the construction cost of the instant case.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that the contract was stipulated as a "excluding value-added tax" but that he agreed to include value-added tax in the contract amount on the oral basis, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of the oral agreement as above, and thus, the defendant

In addition, the defendant did not issue a tax invoice to the plaintiff.