1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company running the construction business, and the Defendant is a person who executes news lux and boundary stone construction business.

B. C around March 6, 2017 to April 2017, the name of the Plaintiff Company contracted the removal and reconstruction of reinforced soil and retaining wall construction (hereinafter “instant D construction”) among the new construction of D multi-family house in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do, and the same year from March 6, 2017.

6. By the end of 30.30., from among the four new urban-type residential housing construction works in the name of the Plaintiff Company, the construction of underground-type residential housing (hereinafter “instant F Corporation”). The instant D Corporation and F Corporation were subcontracted by G Company to perform the construction of underground-type residential housing (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. If C requests that the payment of the prepaid and the prepaid price received from E and G companies be made to each of the instant contractors of the instant construction project with the account in the name of the Plaintiff Company, the Plaintiff paid it as it is.

On the other hand, C paid to the Plaintiff the installment amounting to 3.5% of the construction cost of each of the instant construction works.

The Defendant issued a tax invoice of KRW 22,50,000 (including additional tax) related to the instant FF project on March 21, 2017, and submitted it to the Plaintiff Company by issuing a false tax invoice of KRW 11,00,000 (including additional tax) related to the instant F project, as if the Defendant had performed a removal work of reinforced soil among the instant FF works, etc. upon C’s instruction.

E. The Plaintiff Company: (a) KRW 22,50,000 on March 23, 2017, according to the tax invoice issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff; and (b) the same year.

5. 12.12. 11. 11.00,000 Won in total.33,550,000

(hereinafter referred to as “the construction cost of this case”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 3, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, the witness C’s testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff Company with respect to each of the instant construction works.