1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

According to the fact that there is no dispute between the parties or the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant who is a contractor on April 22, 2014, concluded a contract with the plaintiff as the contractor to newly construct the D's Second Logistics Center (hereinafter referred to as the "instant building") with the defendant's representative on the land other than the wife C and six parcels at the time of the plaintiff's permission, with the construction cost of 1.65 million won (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period from April 22, 2014 to June 8, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "instant construction contract").

From April 30, 2014 to June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff seeks payment of the total value-added tax of KRW 50 million among the construction price bonds issued five times against the Defendant on the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff.

In regard to this, the Defendant’s defense that the claim for construction price equivalent to the value-added tax has expired by prescription. Thus, it is acknowledged that the due date for the claim for construction price equivalent to the value-added tax became due on June 9, 2014, which was issued a tax invoice at the latest, and that the period of extinctive prescription has three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price was filed on May 18, 2018, which was three years after the said lawsuit was filed. As such, the claim equivalent to the value-added tax

(Preliminary set-off is not determined. The plaintiff was served with a written answer stating the defendant's defense, but did not go against it, and did not appear on the date of pleading.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.